DETAILED ACTION
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 the claim(s) 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.
The examiner requests a Terminal Disclaimer.
The examiner notes a SMALL ERROR regarding the allowability of claims 19 and 26. These two claims should have been rejected in a similar fashion as claims 3 and 11 since they recite the same limitations. The examiner does NOT consider this a new grounds of rejection since this error is easily identified and could have been discussed in a quick phone call/interview.
Also note claim 25 does NOT recite “a wake-up burst structure”.
The “wake-up burst structure” is given little patentable weight - it is broadly interpreted as the time the UE will receive the SRS/reference signal, hence it needs to “wake-up” to receive an SRS/reference (i.e. if scheduled or aperiodic).
The amendment moves up a properly rejected claim and the examiner is not swayed. The amendment moves up dependent claims 3, 11, 19 and 26 which state”
“..Transmitting/receiving UL data comprising a plurality of reference signal bursts to/from the network entity in the UL portion of the second sub-frame, wherein the plurality of reference signal bursts are uniformly spaced in at least a portion of the UL portion of the second sub-frame AND
wherein the first sub-frame comprises a greater number of reference signal bursts than that of the second sub-frame..”.
The examiner notes that Ekpenyong teaches the ability to transmit “aperiodic” sounding/reference signals. By definition, aperiodic means not on a periodic schedule, hence it can be random.
Ekpenyong teaches “Transmitting/receiving UL data comprising a plurality of reference signal bursts to/from the network entity in the UL portion” of ANY SUBFRAME, (i.e. of the second sub-frame) and also “wherein the plurality of reference signal bursts are uniformly spaced in at least a portion of the UL portion of the second sub-frame” (i.e. periodic transmission as can be found in Para #16)
[0016] Base station 101 configures UE 109 for periodic uplink sounding reference signal (SRS) transmission. Base station 101 estimates uplink channel quality information (CSI) from the SRS transmission.
And also “wherein the first sub-frame comprises a greater number of reference signal bursts than that of the second sub-frame” (aperiodic SRS/reference transmission would be “random” and thus a greater number of reference signal/SRS bursts could be found in a second/other sub-frame):
[From Para #26]: Exploiting channel reciprocity by beamforming is limited to instances when aperiodic sounding from multiple antennas is scheduled.
[From Para #44]: FIG. 5 illustrates an exemplary control element format for aperiodic sounding
Therefore, as seen above, Ekpenyong teaches both periodic and aperiodic transmission of SRS/reference signals. If the scheduling of these differs across (perhaps) a 1st and 2nd subframe, then it is likely (possible) that they will have TWO DIFFERENT number of SRS/reference bursts if/when compared. So, since Ekpenyong doesn’t limit the number of SRS/reference bursts, there can be a situation where “the first sub-frame comprises a greater number of reference signal bursts than that of the second sub-frame”.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 10,122,559. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite a method of communicating utilizing a plurality of self-contained subframes comprising a first subframe and a second subframe, each of the self-contained subframes comprising an uplink (UL) portion and a downlink (DL) portion, transmitting first UL data comprising burst structure including a plurality of reference signal bursts to the scheduling entity in the UL portion of the first subframe, wherein the plurality of reference signal bursts are spaced in at least a portion of the UL portion of the first subframe and transmitting second UL data comprising reference signal bursts to the scheduling entity in the UL portion of the second subframe.
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 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 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 2, 10, 18 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ekpenyong (2014/0036859) and further in view of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #60bis (from IDS).
As per claim 2, Ekpenyong et al. US 2014/0036859 teaches a method of wireless communication operable at a User Equipment (See Abstract and figures which discuss/show wireless communications between a UE and eNodeB), comprising:
communicating with a network entity utilizing a plurality of self-contained sub-frames comprising a first sub-frame and a second sub-frame (Para #17 teaches subframes for downlink or uplink), each of the self- contained sub-frames comprising an uplink (UL) portion and a downlink (DL) portion);
[0017] FIG. 2 shows the Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA) time division duplex (TDD) Frame Structure. Different subframes are allocated for downlink (DL) or uplink (UL) transmissions. Table 1 shows applicable DL/UL subframe allocations.
[0037] There is a potential problem with this scheme for piggybacked DMRS. The piggybacked sounding UE is semi-persistently scheduled before a primary UE is dynamically scheduled for PUSCH transmission in one subframe. If the sounding bandwidth is not the same length in RBs as the PUSCH allocation the DMRS sequences from the sounding UE and the primary UE are not orthogonal. This restricts eNB scheduling, where the primary UE must have the same RB allocation as the sounding UE. If the sounding UE is scheduled with a 4 RB allocation the eNB must schedule a primary UE that can efficiently support 4 RBs in each subframe until the release of the SRS burst.
(From Para #32) “…In another embodiment the SRS burst activation signal can be sent in an UL grant scheduling data transmission on the Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH)…”.
receiving DL control information from the network entity in the DL portion of the first sub-frame (Para #23 teaches that Uplink Grants are signaled to the UE, which would inherently use the Downlink - eg. control information portion of the subframe, since it is considered control information being sent to the UE. Also note that the signalling is sent in the PDCCH, eg. the downlink control channel),
the DL control information indicating a reference signal burst structure and a wake-up burst structure to be used for the first subframe (Ekpenyong teaches DL control channel information sent to the UE for it to transmit SRS bursts (in the UL) on the indicated manner as identified by the DL control information (which can be aperiodic as well – hence the DL would indicate how/when to transmit and the UE would obey in the UL transmission) and that the UE needs to be awake for SRS/reference signal reception. Similarly, the 3GPP document (below) teaches the SRS bursts that can be uniformly spaced); and
[0023] Sounding by piggybacking the PUSCH-RS does not come without cost. This sounding is dependent on the availability of control channel elements (CCE) resources for dynamically signaling the UL grants in the common or UE dedicated search space. Note also that L1/L2 signaling is necessary for each subframe where sounding is required. Therefore, the gain obtained from the increased sounding resources is offset by the increased L1/L2 signaling overhead. This could result in increased Physical Downlink Control CHannel (PDCCH) blocking probability.
transmitting UL data comprising the reference signal burst structure, including a plurality of reference signal bursts, to the network entity in the UL portion of the first sub-frame (As stated above, Ekpenyong teaches DL control channel information sent to the UE for it to transmit SRS bursts (in the UL) on the indicated manner as identified by the DL control information (which can be aperiodic as well – hence the DL would indicate how/when to transmit and the UE would obey in the UL transmission). Similarly, the 3GPP document (below) teaches the SRS bursts that can be uniformly spaced);
[0021] Sounding capacity can be increased by re-using all uplink reference signals wherever possible. This is already supported by Rel-8 and is left to eNB implementation.
[0021] Sounding capacity can be increased by re-using all uplink reference signals wherever possible. This is already supported by Rel-8 and is left to eNB implementation. For example, the Physical Uplink Control CHannel Reference Signal (PUCCH-RS) can be used to obtain long term channel statistics for precoding, while the Physical Uplink Shared CHannel Reference Signal (PUSCH-RS) may provide more accurate channel estimation in a particular UpLink (UL) Resource Block (RB) allocation compared to the Sounding Reference Signal (SRS). Note that obtaining channel state information from the PUSCH is limited to the PUSCH allocation for the UE.
Transmitting/receiving UL data comprising a plurality of reference signal bursts to/from the network entity in the UL portion of the second sub-frame, wherein the plurality of reference signal bursts are uniformly spaced in at least a portion of the UL portion of the second sub-frame AND wherein the first sub-frame comprises a greater number of reference signal bursts than that of the second sub-frame (Ekpenyong teaches the ability to also schedule APERIODIC SRS signals, which are interpreted as being dynamically configured by the eNodeB. Hence the condition can occur whereby the first sub-frame will have a greater number of reference signal bursts than that of the second sub-frame because (perhaps) the network does not need as much information after that first sub-frame's information is received);
[0024] In another method the Sounding Reference Signal (SRS) is dynamically scheduled for one shot transmission using an activation Information Element (IE) in the Downlink Control Information (DCI) format(s) scheduling PUSCH transmission.
Furthermore, one skilled sees that, a potential design choice exists as to how many SRS’s the network wants from the UE, it can be the same in each sub-frame (or periodic), it can be dynamically scheduled such that there are more/less in 2 successive sub-frames.
But is silent on
wherein the plurality of reference signal bursts are uniformly spaced in at least a portion of the UL portion of the first sub-frame.
The 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #60bis (from IDS) document teaches SRS bursts that can be scheduled – figure 2 shows that there are 4 periods within a sub-frame that are sent at what is interpreted as "uniformly spaced in at least the Uplink portion of the first sub-frame" - the figure shows (bottom left) 4 SRS bursts that appear to be uniformly spaced. See also Page 4, Benefits of SPS Sounding, which states in #2 that the burst duration is configurable, hence they can be uniformly spaced apart.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention's filing, to modify Ekpenyong, such that wherein the plurality of reference signal bursts are uniformly spaced in at least a portion of the UL portion of the first sub-frame, to provide a set of closely spaced SRS transmissions in order to improve channel estimation of cell-edge UE’s for frequency dependent scheduling, timing estimation or UL Power Control (See 3GPP document, page 4, OPTION 3 RRC Signaling paragraph, also see the two bullets).
As per claim 10, this claim is rejected in its entirety as based on the rejection of claim 2. With further regard to a method of wireless communication operable at a network entity, comprising the steps of the claim, Ekpenyong teaches communications between the UE and eNodeB (Figures 1 and 8 shows the communications).
As per claim 18, this claim is rejected in its entirety as based on the rejection of claim 2. With further regard to an apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories comprising executable code; and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more processors being configured by the executable code to perform the steps of the claim, Ekpenyong teaches an apparatus/UE (Figure 8, #1001 w/processor #1010 and memory with stored applications/code #1012/#1014).
As per claim 25, this claim is rejected in its entirety as based on the rejection of claim 2. With further regard to an apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories comprising executable code; and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories, one or more the processors being configured by the executable code to: perform the steps of the claim, Ekpenyong teaches an apparatus/UE (Figure 8, #1001 w/processor #1010 and memory with stored applications/code #1012/#1014).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9, 12-17, 20-24 and 27-31 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
These claims recite highly detailed technical designs that are not found in at least the prior art of record, either alone or in combination:
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 STEPHEN M. D'AGOSTA whose telephone number is (571)272-7862. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am to 4pm (IFW).
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, Edan (Dan) Orgad can be reached on 571-272-7884. 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.
/STEPHEN M D AGOSTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights