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 .
This action is response to the application filed on 11/03/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending and herein considered.
Oath/Declaration
The receipt of oath/declaration is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11/03/2023. These drawings are reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 01/16/2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CRR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 of this title, 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 1, 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (EP 4676118 A1) in view of Lee et al. (U.S 9, 755,871).
For claim 1:
Xie discloses a user equipment (UE) (see Xie, at least Figures 1-2: a terminal (UE)), comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE (see Xie, at least Figure 10; processor, memory) to:
transmit, to a first network entity serving the UE (see Xie, at least Figure 2; transmit to network entity (network device), a first message comprising a request for a quantity of transmission layers scheduled to be used by one or more neighbor network entities for communication within a communication resource (see Xie, at least figure 7c, steps S730c; the first communication apparatus sends overlay transmission information, where the overlay transmission information includes a performance message or an overlay request (or a total quantity of layers);
receive, from the first network entity, an indication of the quantity of transmission layers for the communication resource (see Xie, at least figure 7c, steps S730c; the first communication apparatus sends overlay transmission information, where the overlay transmission information includes a performance message or an overlay request (or a total quantity of layers);; and
receive, via the communication resource, a downlink message using a rank-aware channel estimation algorithm corresponding to the quantity of transmission layers for the communication resource (see Xie, at least figure 7c, steps S740c; sending continue signaling or a resource).
Xie does not explicitly disclose a downlink message using a rank-aware channel estimation.
Lee, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, further discloses what Xie fails: UE is already aware that rank 3 of data is used for the RB #3. When the UE performs channel estimation based on the C_RS of the RB #3, the UE is able to know that the D_RS of the rank 3 is overlapped. The UE can detect DCI information (DCI in the RB #3) by performing C_RS channel estimation (see Lee, at least column 15, lines 30-43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious statement before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a system comprises a method as taught by Lee. The motivation for doing this is to provide a system networks in order to improve the overhead problem.
For claim 8:
For claim 8, claim 8 is directed to a first network entity which has similar scope as claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 remains un-patentable for the same reasons.
For claim 16:
For claim 16, claim 16 is directed to a second network entity which has similar scope as claim 1. Therefore, claim 16 remains un-patentable for the same reasons.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (EP 4676118 A1) in view of Lee et al. (U.S 9, 755,871) further in view of Bayesteh et al. (U.S 10,326,565).
For claim 2:
In addition to rejection in claim 2, Xie-Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the first message is transmitted based at least in part on noise covariance matrix estimation for the communication resource satisfying an interference threshold value.
Bayesteh, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, further discloses what Xie-Lee fails: noise covariance matrix, and column 10, the updated noise covariance matrix to decode the SCMA layers (see Bayesteh, at least figure 5s 560, 565, and see column 12, lines 25-37; a total transmission rate being used for the SCMA layers, it is possible to determine a threshold on a such that the following constraint is satisfied, also column 15-16; lines 30-37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious statement before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a system comprises a method as taught by Bayesteh. The motivation for doing this is to provide a system networks in order to improve in multi-user downlink and uplink are an area that could aid in meeting demand for higher data rates.
For claim 3:
In addition to rejection in claim 3, Xie-Lee- Bayesteh further discloses wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive, from the first network entity, control information comprising an indication to perform the noise covariance matrix estimation within the communication resource (see Bayesteh, at least column 17, lines 5-10; Each of the third signals includes at least one second stream of bits mapped to a respective subset of the set of available resource elements). The motivation for doing this is to provide a system networks in order to improve in multi-user downlink and uplink are an area that could aid in meeting demand for higher data rates.
Claims 4-6, 9-11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (EP 4676118 A1) in view of Lee et al. (U.S 9, 755,871) further in view of Hu et al. (EP 4096110A1).
For claims 4 and 9:
In addition to rejection in claims 4 and 9, Xie-Lee does not explicitly disclose the first message comprises an indication of a granularity associated with the quantity of transmission layers, and the granularity comprises a quantity of transmission layers per resource element, a quantity of transmission layers per resource block, a quantity of transmission layers per slot, or a quantity of transmission layers per subcarrier.
Hu, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, further discloses what Xie-Lee fails: a slot with subcarrier and the TPMIs are cyclically mapped in frequency domain at a granularity of a configured or indicated physical resource block group (physical resource block group, PRG) (see Hu, at least paragraph [0090]; [0136]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious statement before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a system comprises a method as taught by Hu. The motivation for doing this is to provide a system networks in order to improve uplink data reliability and uplink transmission efficiency.
For claim 5:
In addition to rejection in claim 5, Xie-Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication of the quantity of transmission layers comprises a sum of quantities of transmission layers associated with the one or more neighbor network entities.
Hu, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, further discloses what Xie-Lee fails: a slot for sending the nominal PUSCH, that is, determine a value of a sum of a number of a slot of the PDCCH (see Hu, at least paragraph [0153]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious statement before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a system comprises a method as taught by Hu. The motivation for doing this is to provide a system networks in order to improve uplink data reliability and uplink transmission efficiency.
For claims 6 and 12:
In addition to rejection in claims 6 and 12, Xie-Lee does not explicitly disclose the indication of the quantity of transmission layers for the communication resource is received via control signaling, and the control signaling further comprises a scheduling grant that allocates the communication resource to the UE.
Hu, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, further discloses what Xie-Lee fails: grant scheduling information herein may be carried on a physical downlink control channel (physical downlink control channel, PDCCH) by using the DCI (see Hu, at least paragraph [0123]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious statement before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a system comprises a method as taught by Hu. The motivation for doing this is to provide a system networks in order to improve uplink data reliability and uplink transmission efficiency.
For claim 10:
In addition to rejection in claim 10, Xie-Lee-Hu further discloses wherein the indication of the quantity of transmission layers is based at least in part on the granularity (see Hu, at least paragraph [0090]; time domain granularity for resource scheduling in a 5G mobile communication system needs to be more flexible. Specifically, in 5G, both a time domain scheduling granularity of a time unit level and a time domain scheduling granularity of a mini-time unit are supported. For example, scheduling at a time unit granularity is mainly used for an eMBB service, and scheduling at a mini-time unit granularity is mainly used for a URLLC service).
Therefore, it would have been obvious statement before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a system comprises a method as taught by Hu. The motivation for doing this is to provide a system networks in order to improve uplink data reliability and uplink transmission efficiency.
For claim 11:
In addition to rejection in claim 11, Xie-Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first network entity to: transmit, to the UE, control information comprising an indication to perform noise covariance matrix estimation for the communication resource.
Bayesteh, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, further discloses what Xie-Lee fails: noise covariance matrix, and column 10, the updated noise covariance matrix to decode the SCMA layers (see Bayesteh, at least figure 5s 560, 565, and see column 12, lines 25-37; a total transmission rate being used for the SCMA layers, it is possible to determine a threshold on a such that the following constraint is satisfied, also column 15-16; lines 30-37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious statement before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a system comprises a method as taught by Bayesteh. The motivation for doing this is to provide a system networks in order to improve in multi-user downlink and uplink are an area that could aid in meeting demand for higher data rates.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (EP 4676118 A1) in view of Lee et al. (U.S 9, 755,871) further in view of NPL- MODERATOR (NOKIA), et al., "Summary #1 of Multi-TRP PUCCB and PUSCB Enhancements", 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #106-e, 3GPP Draft, R1-2108298, Mobile Competence Centre, 650, Route Des Lucioles, F-06921 Sophia-Antipolis Cedex, France, Vol. RAN WG1, No. e-Meeting, 20210816-20210827, 51 Pages, 17 August 2021 (2021-08-17), XP052042113, page 43; hereinafter “R1-2108298”.
For claims 7 and 15:
In addition to rejection in claims 7 and 15, Xie-Lee does not explicitly disclose the first message is transmitted via a first medium access control-control element (MAC-CE) or a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH), and the indication of the quantity of transmission layers for the communication resource is received via a second medium access control-control element (MAC-CE) or a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH).
R1-2108298, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, discloses Xie-Lee fails: Support MAC-CE activating two spatial relation info's (for FR2) for a group of PUCCH resources in a CC (see R1-2108298, at least section 5, 5.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious statement before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a system comprises a method as taught by R1-2108298. The motivation for doing this is to provide a system networks where UE to report the capability on whether it supports the second TPC field.
Claims 13, 14, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (EP 4676118 A1) in view of Lee et al. (U.S 9, 755,871) further in view of Marupaduga et al. (U.S 11,140,639).
For claims 14 and 17:
In addition to rejection in claim 17, Xie-Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the message includes information indicating an estimated geolocation of a user equipment (UE) served by the first network entity.
Marupaduga, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, discloses Xie-Lee fails: the base station could transmit individual MIMO layers to UEs, by beamforming and/or pre-coding the transmissions. For example, the base station could beamform transmissions to an individual UE by evaluating angle of arrival of uplink signals (e.g., an uplink sounding-reference-signal) from the UE or determining geolocation of the UE (see Marupaduga, at least column 10, lines 54-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious statement before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a system comprises a method as taught by Marupaduga. The motivation for doing this is to provide a system networks in order to improve spectral efficiency.
For claims 13 and 20:
In addition to rejection in claim 20, Xie-Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the first network entity comprises a serving gNodeB (gNB) serving a UE that requests the quantity of transmission layers, the one or more neighbor network entities comprise one or more interferer gNBs, and the second network entity comprises a core network entity serving a plurality of gNBs, the plurality of gNBs comprising the serving gNB and the one or more interferer gNBs.
Marupaduga, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, discloses Xie-Lee fails: the base station serving a plurality of UEs over the air interface, each of the UEs having a respective MIMO rank that defines a quantity of MIMO layers to use for communication between the base station and the UE. At block 32 (while serving the UEs) and the base station is shown coupled with a core network 20, which could be an enhanced packet core (EPC) network, next generation core (NGC) network, or another network including components supporting an applicable radio access technology and providing connectivity with at least one transport network 22, such as the Internet (see Marupaduga, at least column 3, lines 62-67 and column 7, lines 10-16). Therefore, it would have been obvious statement before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a system comprises a method as taught by Marupaduga. The motivation for doing this is to provide a system networks in order to improve spectral efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in all independents form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if rewritten or amended to overcome any objection claims set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior arts made or record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosures. Cho (U.S 2011/0159904), discloses layer module 42 may be communicatively coupled to a transport layer and/or an application layer. Host layer module 42 may service communication requests from one or more of the layers above the host layer.
Zhu et al. (U.S 2023/0309144), discloses a request to sense indication can be sent using signaling at a layer higher than L1, such as using a control element (CE) in the MAC sublayer, that is MAC-CE.
Lee et al. (U.S 9,755,871), discloses determining a number of rank of the second reference signal based on the total power value of the reference signals.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAN HUONG TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5829. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri (7:30AM-5:00PM).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RICKY NGO can be reached on 571-272-3139. 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.
/Lan-Huong Truong/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit: 2464
02/05/2026