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 .
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claims 1-25 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, based on the following guidance.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “processing system” in at least the independent claims 1 and 20, and no dependent claims of 1 and 20 recite sufficient structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The structure described in the specification in at least para. 101 and fig. 9 is generally recognized in the electrical art (such as a computer, processor, specialized hardware, etc., to realize the invention). Therefore, Examiner finds the claims are reasonably supported by the structure described in the specification pertaining to 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs, whether or not 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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 1, 9-10, 12, 18, 20-24, 26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (2) as being anticipated by Yu et al. (US 2022/0224481).
Regarding claim 1, Yu discloses a network entity for wireless communication (fig. 1, terminal device; specification of the instant application, paras. 73, penultimate sentence, and paras. 97-100; note: a UE as an entity), comprising: a processing system (fig. 11, items 1110-1130; paras. 237-242) configured to: receive first control information that schedules reception, at the network entity, of a first message during a set of time-frequency resources (fig. 4, step S401; paras. 90 and 109-110; fig. 6; note: DCI portion for scheduling time-frequency resources of a PDSCH message); receive second control information that is associated with a time-domain resource block pattern (step S401; paras. 90 and 111-112; fig. 6), wherein the time-domain resource block pattern defines a first time-domain resource block during at least a portion of the set of time-frequency resources (fig. 6; para. 155; note: DMRS are a portion of the time-frequency resources), and wherein the first time-domain resource block includes a set of orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) symbols (paras. 72-73 and 155); and demodulate data based on the time-domain resource block pattern (para. 83, especially the last three lines; para. 178, especially the last sentence).
Regarding claim 9, Yu discloses the network entity of claim 1, wherein the time-domain resource block pattern comprises the first time-domain resource block and one or more second time-domain resource blocks that follow, in time, the first time-domain resource block (fig. 5, step S501, DMRS pattern; fig. 5, N time units; figs. 6-7; paras. 72-73; paras. 80, 148 and 151).
Regarding claim 10, Yu discloses the network entity of claim 9, wherein the first time-domain resource block includes one or more boundaries in time based on locations of demodulation reference signal (DMRS) symbols, wherein the one or more boundaries include at least one of a starting boundary in time or an ending boundary in time (figs. 6-7; para. 99; paras. 77 and 80; note: indication of symbols occupied by DMRS, each symbol as a starting or ending boundary in time).
Regarding claim 12, Yu discloses the network entity of claim 10, wherein the starting boundary is defined by a temporally first OFDM symbol of the first time-domain resource block being a DMRS symbol (figs. 2 and 6; note: front-loaded DMRS at the first non-control symbol of a slot; para. 96).
Regarding claim 18, Yu discloses the network entity of claim 9, wherein at least one of the first time-domain resource block and the one or more second time-domain resource blocks includes an ending boundary, in time, that aligns with a slot boundary (Yu, figs. 2 and 6; paras. 72-73).
Regarding claim 20, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 1 from the perspective of a base station network device (fig. 1). In addition, Yu discloses the first network entity for wireless communication, comprising: a processing system (fig. 11, items 1110-1130; paras. 237-242) configured to perform the respective operations of the network device including to transmit the first control information and second control information for the terminal device network entity of claim 1 (fig. 4, step S401).
Regarding claim 21, Yu discloses the first network entity of claim 20, wherein the second control information is indicative of a quantity of demodulation reference signals (DMRSs) or DMRS occasions per time-domain resource block, a time-domain resource block maximum duration, or a combination thereof (fig. 4, step 401 and fig. 6; fig. 5, step S501, DMRS pattern; fig. 5, indication of a maximum of N time units; figs. 6-7; paras. 72-73; paras. 80, 148 and 151; note: quantity of DMRS symbols per slot).
Regarding claim 22, Yu discloses the first network entity of claim 20, wherein the second control information is indicative of the time-domain resource block pattern (fig. 4, step 401 and fig. 6; fig. 5, step S501, DMRS pattern; fig. 5, indication of a maximum of N time units; figs. 6-7; paras. 72-73; paras. 80, 148 and 151; note: quantity of DMRS symbols per slot).
Regarding claim 23, Yu discloses the first network entity of claim 20, wherein the second control information indicates that the second network entity is to switch to or from application of the time-domain resource block pattern (step S401; paras. 105, 165 and 178 (especially the last two sentences); note: periodically configured DRMS patterns or a periodic DMRS configuration; para. 127; note: DMRS added or deleted based on a pre-configuration; para. 128; note: dmrsChange).
Regarding claim 24, Yu discloses the first network entity of claim 20, wherein the second control information is transmitted via a radio resource control (RRC) message,
Regarding claim 26, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 1.
Regarding claim 29, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 20.
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.
Claim 2-4 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yu in view of Gu (WO 2022/265626).
Regarding claims 2-4, Yu discloses receiving data during the first time-domain resource block (fig. 4, step S401; paras. 90 and 109-110; fig. 6; note: scheduled time-frequency resources of a PDSCH message) but fails to disclose the network entity of claim 1, wherein the processing system is configured to: cache the data received during the first time-domain resource block for subsequent processing, wherein, to demodulate the data, the processing system is configured to demodulate the data after a temporally last OFDM symbol of the first time-domain resource block, and wherein the processing system is configured to: perform a channel estimation procedure after a temporally last OFDM symbol of the first time-domain resource block, wherein the channel estimation procedure is based on a portion of the data received during the first time-domain resource block. However, Gu discloses buffering (caching) received data of a PDSCH for subsequent demodulation, where the demodulation is based on a channel estimation of a portion of PDSCH symbols (fig. 2; fig. 6, step S606; para. 70; paras. 27-28; note: all PDSCH symbols of a slot; paras. 47-48; step S618 and paras. 76-77; note: the channel estimation and demodulation processes start or continue after the last symbol is received in the slot as a more efficient or alternatively less efficient (conventional manner) of channel estimation and demodulation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cache data received during the first time-domain resource block for subsequent processing, demodulate data after a temporally last OFDM symbol of the first time-domain resource block, and perform a channel estimation procedure after a temporally last OFDM symbol of the first time-domain resource block, wherein the channel estimation procedure is based on a portion of the data received during the first time-domain resource block in the invention of Yu. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, processing received data according to reference signals and channel estimation as is known in the art (Gu, figs. 2 and 6; para. 27-28, 47-48 and 76-77; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claims 27-28, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 2-3, respectively.
Claims 5 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yu in view of Morozov et al. (US 2021/0006443).
Regarding claim 5, Yu discloses the network entity of claim 1, wherein the time-domain resource block pattern (fig. 5, step S501, DMRS pattern) defines a plurality of time-domain resource blocks (fig. 5, time units; fig. 6; paras. 72-73) that includes the first time-domain resource block, and wherein a DMRS of the first message is resource mapped to the first time-domain resource block in accordance with a mapping scheme on a per time-domain resource block basis (figs. 6-7; note: different amount of DMRS per slot; paras. 80, 148 and 151). However, Yu fails to disclose the DMRS as a codeword but Morozov discloses this feature (paras. 106 and 110; note: DMRS derived from a Gold code bit sequence). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the DRMS as a codeword (Gold code) in the invention of Yu. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, physically implementing reference signals as is known in the art (Morozov, paras. 106 and 110; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 30, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 5.
Claim 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yu in view of Morozov as applied to claim 5 above, and in further view of Xiong et al. (US 2019/0053226).
Regarding claims 6-7, Yu fails to disclose the network entity of claim 5, wherein the mapping scheme is a time-first, frequency-second mapping scheme within each of the plurality of time-domain resource blocks and the network entity of claim 5, wherein the mapping scheme is a frequency-first, time-second mapping scheme within each of the plurality of time-domain resource blocks. However, Morozov discloses time-first and frequency-first DMRS mapping (para. 97, especially the third sentence) and Xiong discloses time-first and frequency-first mapping based on channel conditions (para. 63). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the mapping scheme as a time-first, frequency-second mapping scheme within each of the plurality of time-domain resource blocks or the mapping scheme as a frequency-first, time-second mapping scheme within each of the plurality of time-domain resource blocks in the invention of Yu. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing appropriate DMRS mapping as is known in the art (Morozov, para. 97 and Xiong, para. 63; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yu in view of Morozov as applied to claim 5 above, and in further view of Zhang et al. (US 2021/0084623), Takeda et al. (US 2021/0410119) and Xiong et al. (US 2019/0053226).
Yu in view of Morozov fails to teach and make obvious the network entity of claim 5, wherein the plurality of time-domain resource blocks includes one or more time-domain resource blocks in each of multiple subbands. However, Zhang discloses time-domain resource block in multiple subbands (figs. 1a and 6; para. 172 and 199; note: DMRS for carriers assigned to a UE). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of time-domain resource blocks include one or more time-domain resource blocks in each of multiple subbands in the invention of Yu in view of Morozov. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing increased bandwidth or carrier aggregation for transmission as is well known in the art (Zhang, figs. 1a and 6, and paras. 3 (first sentence), 172 and 199; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Further, Yu in view of the embodiment of Morozov and Zhang fails to teach and make obvious wherein the mapping scheme is a frequency-first, time-second mapping scheme within each of the plurality of time-domain resource blocks, and a subband-first, time-second mapping scheme between individual ones of the plurality of time-domain resource blocks. However, Morozov in another embodiment discloses frequency-first, time-second DMRS mapping for a time unit (para. 97, especially the third sentence; fig. 15a; paras. 159-160), Takeda discloses subband-first, time-second mapping for resources (fig. 6A and para 140, especially the last sentence) and Xiong discloses frequency-first mapping based on channel conditions (para. 63). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the mapping scheme as a frequency-first, time-second mapping scheme within each of the plurality of time-domain resource blocks, and a subband-first (i.e., frequency-first over subbands of symbols of a time unit), time-second mapping scheme between individual ones of the plurality of time-domain resource blocks in the invention of Yu in view of the embodiment of Morozov and Zhang. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing appropriate DMRS mapping as is known in the art (Morozov, para. 97; Takeda, fig. 6A and para 140; Xiong, para. 63; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Claim 11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yu in view of Yang et al. (US 2016/0057753).
Regarding claims 11 and 13-16, Yu discloses DMRS at different symbols of a slot among several slots (figs. 2 and 6) but fails to disclose the network entity of claim 10, wherein the ending boundary is defined by a temporally last OFDM symbol of the first time-domain resource block being a DMRS symbol, the network entity of claim 9, wherein the first time-domain resource block and a temporally first of the one or more second time-domain resource blocks that immediately follows the first time-domain resource block are defined by a DMRS symbol that is either a temporally last OFDM symbol of the first time-domain resource block or a temporally first OFDM symbol of the temporally first of the one or more second time-domain resource blocks, the network entity of claim 9, wherein at least one of the first time-domain resource block or the one or more second time-domain resource blocks is defined to include a DMRS symbol that is a channel estimation source for one or more OFDM symbols in an adjacent time-domain resource block of the one or more second time-domain resource blocks, the network entity of claim 14, wherein the adjacent time-domain resource block is one of a temporally first or last of the one or more second time-domain resource blocks, and the network entity of claim 9, wherein one or more temporally last time-domain resource blocks of the one or more second time-domain resource blocks do not include demodulation reference signals (DMRSs).
Yang discloses a DMRS at a last symbol of a slot for channel estimation of two adjacent slots (fig. 2; para. 25; note: for claim 13, alternatively, the last sentence of para. 25 describes a first symbol of second slot). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ending boundary defined by a temporally last OFDM symbol of the first time-domain resource block being a DMRS symbol, wherein the first time-domain resource block and a temporally first of the one or more second time-domain resource blocks that immediately follows the first time-domain resource block are defined by a DMRS symbol that is either a temporally last OFDM symbol of the first time-domain resource block or a temporally first OFDM symbol of the temporally first of the one or more second time-domain resource blocks, wherein at least one of the first time-domain resource block or the one or more second time-domain resource blocks is defined to include a DMRS symbol that is a channel estimation source for one or more OFDM symbols in an adjacent time-domain resource block of the one or more second time-domain resource blocks, wherein the adjacent time-domain resource block is one of a temporally first or last of the one or more second time-domain resource blocks, wherein one or more temporally last time-domain resource blocks of the one or more second time-domain resource blocks do not include demodulation reference signals (DMRSs) in the invention of Yu. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, using one DMRS symbol for channel estimation of two time units (slots) as is known in the art (Yang, fig. 2 and para. 25; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yu in view of Yang as applied to claim 16 above, and in further view of Nam et al. (US 2024/0172197).
Yu in view of Yang teaches and makes obvious a slot with 14 symbols (Yu, figs. 2 and 6) but fails to teach and make obvious the network entity of claim 16, wherein the one or more temporally last time-domain resource blocks each include
Claims 19 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yu in view of Liu (US 2024/0163135).
Regarding claim 19, Yu fails to disclose the network entity of claim 1, wherein the processing system is configured to: report channel estimation time window duration information, wherein the second control information is based on the channel estimation time window duration information. However, Liu discloses a UE reporting a channel estimation duration (fig. 3; para. 50; note: capability of DMRS bundling across a number of slots or time range; para. 102; fig. 6) and control information is based on the channel estimation duration (paras. 97-98; paras. 42-44 and 47; note: DMRS timing and other parameters based on the capability). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to report channel estimation time window duration information, wherein the second control information is based on the channel estimation time window duration information in the invention of Yu. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, performing DMRS channel estimation over time periods based on capability as is known in the art (Liu, figs. 3 and 6, and paras. 42-44, 47 and 97-98; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 25, Yu fails to disclose the first network entity of claim 20, wherein the second control information includes a demodulation reference signal (DMRS) pattern
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Harper whose telephone number is 571-272-3166. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM 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, Yemane Mesfin, can be reached at 571-272-3927. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. For non-official communications, the examiner’s e-mail address is kevin.harper@uspto.gov (MPEP 502.03 – A copy of all received emails relating to an application including proposed amendments and excluding scheduling information for interviews will be placed informally into the application file).
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.
/Kevin C. Harper/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights