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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 10, 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Independent Claims
Claim(s) 1, 10, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu (US-20210084510) in view of Kim (US-11032046), Zhang (US-20190281588).
As to claim 1, 10, 19: Ryu teaches a user equipment (UE) comprising: a transceiver configured to receive, from a base station (BS), first configuration
information ([0004, 58, 89, 90] The UE may perform path-loss estimations on path-loss reference signals configured by a base station); and a processor operably coupled to the transceiver, the processor configured to identify the first configuration information including a set of sounding reference signal (SRS) resources each of which is associated with an SRS-path loss reference signal for transmitting an SRS ([0004, 58, 89, 90] a path-loss reference signal may be derived from a downlink reference signal in the spatial relation associated with the SRS resource indicator (SRI) indicated in a scheduling downlink control information (DCI) message (e.g., if the path-loss reference signal is not configured but periodic downlink reference signals are configured in the spatial relation of the SRS)), wherein: the transceiver is further configured to transmit, to the BS, the SRS based on the first configuration information ([0025, 96] the uplink message includes an uplink data packet or a sounding reference signal (SRS) or both).
Ryu may not explicitly teach the set of SRS resources comprises a first set of resources and a second set of resources, the first set of resources and the second set of resources being configured for a different number of analog beams, respectively. However, Kim teaches the set of SRS resources comprises a first set of resources and a second set of resources, the first set of resources and the second set of resources being configured for a different number of analog beams, respectively (claim 1. A method of transmitting an uplink signal by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: receiving, from a base station (BS), information on a sounding reference signal (SRS) resource unit among predetermined SRS resource units, wherein each of the predetermined SRS resource units corresponds to different analog beams).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement analog beams for SRS resource sets, taught by Kim, into the communication system, taught by Ryu, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and perform channel measurements. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Ryu and Kim in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references. Moreover, it is generally considered to be within the ordinary skill in the art to adjust, vary, select or optimize the numerical parameters or values of any system absent a showing of criticality in a particular recited value. The burden of showing criticality is on Applicant. In re Mason, 87 F.2d 370, 32 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1937); Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. v. U.S., 320 U.S. 1, 57 USPQ 471 (1943); In re Schneider, 148 F.2d 108, 65 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1945); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955); In re Saether, 492 F.2d 849, 181 USPQ 36 (CCPA 1974); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Since Kim discloses multiple resource units, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have multiple resource sets, including one or two, absent a showing of criticality by Applicant.
Ryu may not explicitly teach a subset of the set of SRS resources is selected based on the SRS and the first configuration information, and second configuration information including the subset of the set of SRS resources is identified based on subset of the set of SRS resources. However, Zhang teaches a subset of the set of SRS resources is selected based on the SRS and the first configuration information, and second configuration information including the subset of the set of SRS resources is identified based on subset of the set of SRS resources ([0038, 184, 185], claim 21 the RAN node 111 selects an SRS resource subset from among the one or more configure SRS resources, and at operation 1115, the RAN node 111 generates and transmits a MAC CE (e.g., MAC CE 900 of FIG. 9) indicating the SRS resource subset to a UE 101).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement selecting SRS subset, taught by Zhang, into the communication system, taught by Ryu, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and reduce power consumption and overhead . In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Zhang and Ryu in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Dependent Claims
Claim(s) 2, 11, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu (US-20210084510) in view of Kim (US-11032046), Zhang (US-20190281588).
As to claim 2, 11, 20: Ryu teaches the BS of Claim 1, 10, 19.
Ryu may not explicitly teach wherein the transceiver is further configured to: transmit, to the UE, the second configuration information; and receive, from the UE, the SRS based on the subset of the set of SRS resources. However, Zhang teaches wherein the transceiver is further configured to: transmit, to the UE, the second configuration information ([0038, 184, 185] claim 21); and receive, from the UE, the SRS based on the subset of the set of SRS resources ([0050]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement selecting SRS subset, taught by Zhang, into the communication system, taught by Ryu, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and reduce power consumption and overhead . In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Zhang and Ryu in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 3, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu (US-20210084510), Zhang (US-20190281588) in view of Harrison (US-20190103949).
As to claim 3, 12: Ryu teaches the BS of Claim 1, 12.
Ryu may not explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to collect SRS channel estimates measured on an analog beam via a multiple SRS measurement operation. However, Harrison teaches wherein the processor is further configured to collect SRS channel estimates measured on an analog beam via a multiple SRS measurement operation ([0077]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement analog beam measurements for SRS, taught by Harrison, into the SRS measurements, taught by Ryu, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and efficiently obtain beam measurements. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Ryu and Harrison in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 4, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu (US-20210084510), Kim (US-11032046), Zhang (US-20190281588), Harrison (US-20190103949) in view of Qian (US-20180123659).
As to claim 4, 13: Ryu teaches the BS of Claim 3, 12.
Ryu may not explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to construct a channel matrix based on results of the multiple SRS measurement operation collected from different analog beams. However, Qian teaches wherein the processor is further configured to construct a channel matrix based on results of the multiple SRS measurement operation collected from different analog beams ([0158] In an example, the base station may measure an SRS signal sent by user equipment and obtain the channel matrix).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement determining channel matrix, taught by Qian, into the SRS measurement, taught by Qian, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and obtain channel quality metrics. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Qian and Ryu in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 5, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu (US-20210084510), Kim (US-11032046), Zhang (US-20190281588) in view of Harrison (US-20190103949), Park (US-20200213054).
As to claim 5, 14: Ryu teaches the BS of Claim 1, 10.
Ryu may not explicitly teach wherein: the processor is further configured to identify, based on a discrete Fourier transform (DFT) matrix, a set of analog beams to receive the SRS; and the transceiver is further configured to receive the SRS based on the set of analog beams. However, Park teaches wherein: the processor is further configured to identify, based on a discrete Fourier transform (DFT) matrix, a set of analog beams to receive the SRS; and the transceiver is further configured to receive the SRS based on the set of analog beams ([0323] In the above described example, 4 bits of U1 means that a total of 16 different U1 information may be indicated. Each U1 information may include specific beam vectors to be selected in the U2. As an example, each U1 may be constituted by a set of discrete fourier transform (DFT) vectors as many as the number of UL transmission antenna ports of the U).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement DFT, taught by Park, into the SRS measurement, taught by Ryu, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and provide stable channel estimation. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Park and Ryu in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Ryu, Park may not teach analog. However, Harrison teaches analog ([0077]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement analog beam measurements for SRS, taught by Harrison, into the SRS measurements, taught by Ryu, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and efficiently obtain beam measurements. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Ryu and Harrison in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu (US-20210084510), Kim (US-11032046), Zhang (US-20190281588) in view of Harrison (US-20190103949), Yi (US-20230284197).
As to claim 6, 15: Ryu teaches the BS of Claim 1, 10 … SRS ([0004, 58, 89, 90]).
Ryu may not explicitly teach wherein: the processor is further configured to identify a channel strength of the SRS that is received via different analog beams; and the channel strength is identified based on a threshold and at least one of a reference signal received power (RSRP), a received signal strength indicator (RSSJ), or a signal to interference noise ratio (SINR). However, Yi teaches wherein: the processor is further configured to identify a channel strength of the SRS that is received via different analog beams; and the channel strength is identified based on a threshold and at least one of a reference signal received power (RSRP), a received signal strength indicator (RSSJ), or a signal to interference noise ratio (SINR) ([0095] If the L1-RSRP for each new candidate beam in the beam combination is above the threshold, the candidate beam pair/combination can be selected as newly identified beams for link recovery).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement channel strength measurement, taught by Yi, into the SRS measurements, taught by Ryu, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and obtain channel measurements with which to make connection decisions. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Ryu and Yi in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Ryu, Yi may not teach analog. However, Harrison teaches analog ([0077]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement analog beam measurements for SRS, taught by Harrison, into the SRS measurements, taught by Ryu, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and efficiently obtain beam measurements. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Ryu and Harrison in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
As to claim 7, 16: Ryu teaches the BS of Claim 6, 15.
Ryu may not explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to: select analog beams based on the channel strength of the SRS; and combine the selected analog beams to perform an analog port channel estimate operation. However, Yi teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: select analog beams based on the channel strength of the SRS; and combine the selected analog beams to perform an analog port channel estimate operation ([0095] If the L1-RSRP for each new candidate beam in the beam combination is above the threshold, the candidate beam pair/combination can be selected as newly identified beams for link recovery).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement channel strength measurement, taught by Yi, into the SRS measurements, taught by Ryu, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and obtain channel measurements with which to make connection decisions. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Ryu and Yi in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Ryu, Yi may not teach analog. However, Harrison teaches analog ([0077]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement analog beam measurements for SRS, taught by Harrison, into the SRS measurements, taught by Ryu, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and efficiently obtain beam measurements. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Ryu and Harrison in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu (US-20210084510), Kim (US-11032046), Zhang (US-20190281588) in view of Harrison (US-20190103949), Manolakos (US-20190356431).
As to claim 8: Ryu teaches the BS of Claim 1, 15.
Ryu may not explicitly teach wherein: the first set of resources is configured for the SRS in a periodic reception; and the second set of resources is configured for the SRS in a semi-persistent reception. However, Manolakos teaches wherein: the first set of resources is configured for the SRS in a periodic reception; and the second set of resources is configured for the SRS in a semi-persistent reception ([0053, 59, 61]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement periodic, aperiodic, semipersistent reception of SRS, taught by Manolakos, into the SRS measurement, taught by Ryu, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and to make efficient use of radio resources. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Ryu and Manolakos in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Ryu, Manolakos may not teach analog. However, Harrison teaches analog ([0077]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement analog beam measurements for SRS, taught by Harrison, into the SRS measurements, taught by Ryu, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and efficiently obtain beam measurements. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Ryu and Harrison in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
As to claim 9: Ryu teaches the BS of Claim 8, 17.
Ryu may not explicitly teach wherein: the first set of resources is configured for an entirety of analog beams and a down selection measurement operation to obtain the subset of the set of SRS resources; and the second set of resources is configured for at least one analog beam that is down-selected from the entirety of analog beams on the subset of the set of SRS resources. However, Harrison teaches wherein: the first set of resources is configured for an entirety of analog beams and a down selection measurement operation to obtain the subset of the set of SRS resources ([0077] The TRP can then perform measurements on the eight transmitted SRS resources, determine the best SRS resource for each SRS resource group and signal the corresponding SRIs back to the UE); and the second set of resources is configured for at least one analog beam that is down-selected from the entirety of analog beams on the subset of the set of SRS resources ([0106] The method 1300 further comprises a step S1320 in which the wireless device transmits SRSs identified by the first and second SRS resource, and/or first and second MIMO layers that are mapped to the first and second SRS resources, respectively).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement two-stage measurement, taught by Harrison, into the SRS measurement, taught by Ryu, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable adaptive beam measurement and reduce measurement overhead . In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Ryu and Harrison in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu (US-20210084510), Kim (US-11032046), Zhang (US-20190281588), Harrison (US-20190103949), Yi (US-20230284197) in view of Manolakos (US-20190356431).
As to claim 17: Ryu teaches the method of Claim 15.
Ryu may not explicitly teach wherein: the set of SRS resources comprises a first set of resources and a second set of resources; the first set of resources is configured for the SRS in a periodic reception; and the second set of resources is configured for the SRS in a semi-persistent reception. However, Manolakos teaches wherein: the set of SRS resources comprises a first set of resources and a second set of resources; the first set of resources is configured for the SRS in a periodic reception; and the second set of resources is configured for the SRS in a semi-persistent reception ([0053, 59, 61]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement periodic, aperiodic, semipersistent reception of SRS, taught by Manolakos, into the SRS measurement, taught by Ryu, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and to make efficient use of radio resources. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Ryu and Manolakos in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Ryu, Manolakos may not teach analog. However, Harrison teaches analog ([0077]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement analog beam measurements for SRS, taught by Harrison, into the SRS measurements, taught by Ryu, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and efficiently obtain beam measurements. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Ryu and Harrison in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
As to claim 18: Ryu teaches the method of Claim 17.
Ryu may not explicitly teach wherein: the first set of resources is configured for an entirety of analog beams and a down selection measurement operation to obtain the subset of the set of SRS resources; and the second set of resources is configured for at least one analog beam that is down-selected from the entirety of analog beams on the subset of the set of SRS resources. However, Harrison teaches wherein: the first set of resources is configured for an entirety of analog beams and a down selection measurement operation to obtain the subset of the set of SRS resources ([0077] The TRP can then perform measurements on the eight transmitted SRS resources, determine the best SRS resource for each SRS resource group and signal the corresponding SRIs back to the UE); and the second set of resources is configured for at least one analog beam that is down-selected from the entirety of analog beams on the subset of the set of SRS resources ([0106] The method 1300 further comprises a step S1320 in which the wireless device transmits SRSs identified by the first and second SRS resource, and/or first and second MIMO layers that are mapped to the first and second SRS resources, respectively).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement two-stage measurement, taught by Harrison, into the SRS measurement, taught by Ryu, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable adaptive beam measurement and reduce measurement overhead . In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Ryu and Harrison in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW CHUNG SUK OH whose telephone number is (571)270-5273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12p-8p.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 5712727969. 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.
/ANDREW C OH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466