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 .
The response filed 12/18/2025 has been considered.
Claims 1-13 and 15-22 are pending.
Claim 14 is cancelled.
Claims 1-13 and 15-22 stand rejected.
Claim Objections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered Claims 13-22 have been renumbered 12-21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11, 13 and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In regard to Claims 1 and 5-11, the claim(s) recite(s) an operation for communicating based on reference signaling.
That is, other than reciting “a wireless device” and “a wireless communication network”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “wireless device” and “wireless communication network” language, the operation for “communicating based on reference signaling” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually communicating utilizing reference signaling.
Each of these steps appear to be merely selections that take into account certain information, and, thus, not precluded from being performed by a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites general types of elements – using a “wireless device” and “wireless communication network” to perform the steps. The elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of determining a value and a comparison) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic network computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements utilized to perform the steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2 and 15 (renumbered Claim 14) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an operation to communicate based on reference signaling.
That is, other than reciting “A wireless device” and “a wireless communication network”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “wireless device” and “wireless communication network” language, the operation to “communicate based on reference signaling” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually communicating utilizing reference signaling.
Each of these steps appear to be merely selections that take into account certain information, and, thus, not precluded from being performed by a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites general types of elements – using a “wireless device” and “wireless communication network” to perform the steps. The elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of determining a value and a comparison) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic network computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements utilized to perform the steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 3 and 16-22 (renumbered Claims 15-21) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an operation for communicating with a wireless device based on reference signaling.
That is, other than reciting “a network node”, “a wireless communication network”, and “a wireless device”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “network node”, “wireless communication network”, and “wireless device” language, the operation for “communicating with a wireless device based on reference signaling” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually communicating utilizing reference signaling.
Each of these steps appear to be merely selections that take into account certain information, and, thus, not precluded from being performed by a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites general types of elements – using a “network node”, “a wireless communication network”, and “a wireless device” to perform the steps. The elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of determining a value and a comparison) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic network computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements utilized to perform the steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an operation to communicate with a wireless device based on reference signaling.
That is, other than reciting “A network node”, “a wireless communication network”, and “a wireless device”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “network node”, “wireless communication network”, and “wireless device” language, the operation to “communicate with a wireless device based on reference signaling” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually communicating utilizing reference signaling.
Each of these steps appear to be merely selections that take into account certain information, and, thus, not precluded from being performed by a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites general types of elements – using a “network node”, “a wireless communication network”, and “a wireless device” to perform the steps. The elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of determining a value and a comparison) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic network computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements utilized to perform the steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 13 (renumbered Claim 12) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an operation to communicate with a wireless device based on reference signaling.
That is, other than reciting “A computer storage medium” and a “wireless device”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer storage medium” and “wireless device” language, the operation to “communicating based on reference signaling” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually communicating utilizing reference signaling. Drawing attention to the specification, page 38 states: “A storage medium may comprise at least one of a memory, which may be volatile or non-volatile, a buffer, a cache, an optical disc, magnetic memory, flash memory, etc.”, where “etc.” is open-ended and may be construed as including signals.
Each of these steps appear to be merely selections that take into account certain information, and, thus, not precluded from being performed by a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites general types of elements – using a “computer storage medium” and a “wireless device” to perform the steps. The elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of determining a value and a comparison) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic network computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements utilized to perform the steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 13 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (Pub. No.: US 20190053287 A1), hereafter referred to as Lin.
In regard to Claim 1, Lin teaches A method of operating a wireless device (user equipment (UE), Para. 20) in a wireless communication network (base station, Para. 33), the method comprising: communicating based on reference signaling (transmitting a reference signal in accordance with the received configuration, Para. 20), the reference signaling being based on a sequence root (configure the UE with a UE specific root to use in generating a Zadoff Chu (ZC) sequence for reference signal transmission, Para. 20), the sequence root being one out of a set of sequence roots comprising at least two sequence roots (the UE specific root for the UE is selected from a set of roots containing greater than 60 roots, Para. 21), the set of sequence roots being configured to the wireless device (Sequence hopping means each cell does not have a fixed single root; it can have different roots in different time slots. For example, one cell might select root 8 in a given time slot and then select root 9 in the next slot, and then select root 8 again in the following slot and so on, Para. 133) [the examiner notes that a UE in a cell with sequence hopping involving different roots in different time slots, indicates that the UE can operate with all the different roots involving the cell].
In regard to Claim 2, Lin teaches A wireless device (user equipment (UE), Para. 20) for a wireless communication network (base station, Para. 33), the wireless device configured to: communicate based on reference signaling (transmitting a reference signal in accordance with the received configuration, Para. 20), the reference signaling being based on a sequence root (configure the UE with a UE specific root to use in generating a Zadoff Chu (ZC) sequence for reference signal transmission, Para. 20), the sequence root being one out of a set of sequence roots comprising at least two sequence roots (the UE specific root for the UE is selected from a set of roots containing greater than 60 roots, Para. 21), the set of sequence roots being configured to the wireless device (Sequence hopping means each cell does not have a fixed single root; it can have different roots in different time slots. For example, one cell might select root 8 in a given time slot and then select root 9 in the next slot, and then select root 8 again in the following slot and so on, Para. 133) [the examiner notes that a UE in a cell with sequence hopping involving different roots in different time slots, indicates that the UE can operate with all the different roots involving the cell].
In regard to Claim 3, Lin teaches A method of operating a network node in a wireless communication network (base station, Para. 33), the method comprising: communicating with a wireless device based on reference signaling (transmitting a reference signal in accordance with the received configuration, Para. 20), the reference signaling being based on a sequence root (configure the UE with a UE specific root to use in generating a Zadoff Chu (ZC) sequence for reference signal transmission, Para. 20), the sequence root being one out of a set of sequence roots comprising at least two sequence roots (the UE specific root for the UE is selected from a set of roots containing greater than 60 roots, Para. 21), the set of sequence roots being configured to the wireless device (Sequence hopping means each cell does not have a fixed single root; it can have different roots in different time slots. For example, one cell might select root 8 in a given time slot and then select root 9 in the next slot, and then select root 8 again in the following slot and so on, Para. 133) [the examiner notes that a UE in a cell with sequence hopping involving different roots in different time slots, indicates that the UE can operate with all the different roots involving the cell].
In regard to Claim 4, Lin teaches A network node for a wireless communication network (base station, Para. 33), the network node configured to: communicate with a wireless device based on reference signaling (transmitting a reference signal in accordance with the received configuration, Para. 20), the reference signaling being based on a sequence root (configure the UE with a UE specific root to use in generating a Zadoff Chu (ZC) sequence for reference signal transmission, Para. 20), the sequence root being one out of a set of sequence roots comprising at least two sequence roots (the UE specific root for the UE is selected from a set of roots containing greater than 60 roots, Para. 21), the set of sequence roots being configured to the wireless device (Sequence hopping means each cell does not have a fixed single root; it can have different roots in different time slots. For example, one cell might select root 8 in a given time slot and then select root 9 in the next slot, and then select root 8 again in the following slot and so on, Para. 133) [the examiner notes that a UE in a cell with sequence hopping involving different roots in different time slots, indicates that the UE can operate with all the different roots involving the cell].
In regard to Claim 6, Lin teaches the sequence roots of the set of sequence roots (the UE specific root for the UE is selected from a set of roots containing greater than 60 roots, Para. 21) are Zadoff-Chu root sequences (generating a Zadoff Chu (ZC) sequence for reference signal transmission, Para. 20. Roots for full length ZC sequences for each SRS sequence length, Para. 26), or roots for Gold sequences, or roots for Golay sequences, or roots for M-sequences.
In regard to Claim 7, Lin teaches communicating is transmitting or receiving (a method in a user equipment (UE) comprising: receiving signalling; transmitting a reference signal).
In regard to Claim 13 (renumbered Claim 12), Lin teaches A computer storage medium comprising instructions causing processing circuitry to one or both control and perform a method (memory 208 could store software instructions configured to implement functionality and that are executed by the processing unit(s) 200, Para. 214, FIG. 10A), the method comprising: communicating based on reference signaling (transmitting a reference signal in accordance with the received configuration, Para. 20), the reference signaling being based on a sequence root (configure the UE with a UE specific root to use in generating a Zadoff Chu (ZC) sequence for reference signal transmission, Para. 20), the sequence root being one out of a set of sequence roots comprising at least two sequence roots (the UE specific root for the UE is selected from a set of roots containing greater than 60 roots, Para. 21), the set of sequence roots being configured to the wireless device (Sequence hopping means each cell does not have a fixed single root; it can have different roots in different time slots. For example, one cell might select root 8 in a given time slot and then select root 9 in the next slot, and then select root 8 again in the following slot and so on, Para. 133) [the examiner notes that a UE in a cell with sequence hopping involving different roots in different time slots, indicates that the UE can operate with all the different roots involving the cell].
In regard to Claim 17 (renumbered Claim 16), Lin teaches the sequence roots of the set of sequence roots (the UE specific root for the UE is selected from a set of roots containing greater than 60 roots, Para. 21) are Zadoff-Chu root sequences (generating a Zadoff Chu (ZC) sequence for reference signal transmission, Para. 20. Roots for full length ZC sequences for each SRS sequence length, Para. 26), or roots for Gold sequences, or roots for Golay sequences, or roots for M-sequences.
In regard to Claim 18 (renumbered Claim 17), Lin teaches communicating is transmitting or receiving (a method in a user equipment (UE) comprising: receiving signalling; transmitting a reference signal).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 5, 8-10, 15-16 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Lei et al. (Pub. No.: US 20200245372 A1), hereafter referred to as Lei.
In regard to Claim 5, as presented in the rejection of Claim 1, Lin teaches the reference signaling.
Lin fails to teach the reference signaling is Channel State Information Reference Signaling or Demodulation Reference Signaling.
Lei teaches the reference signaling is Channel State Information Reference Signaling or Demodulation Reference Signaling (different DMRS sequence indexes may correspond to different IDs or different bits of an ID. The UE 404 may determine an ID of the UE 404, and the UE 404 may determine a DMRS sequence index for generating the at least one DMRS 428, Para. 93, FIG. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lei with the teachings of Lin since Lei provides a technique for generating demodulation reference signals utilizing sequence indexes, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Lin to permit demodulation reference signals to be generated from Zadoff Chu sequences of UE specific roots.
In regard to Claim 8, as presented in the rejection of Claim 1, Lin teaches the set of sequence roots.
Lin fails to teach different sequence roots of the set of sequence roots are associated to different frequency domain distribution of reference signaling.
Lei teaches different sequence roots of the set of sequence roots are associated to different frequency domain distribution of reference signaling (second configuration 720, to distinguish the sequences 702a, 702b, 702m from one another, the UE may frequency-division multiplex and/or space-division multiplex the sequences 702a, 702b, 702m. Accordingly, the UE may transmit a first sequence 702a in a first set of subcarriers and/or on a first beam, a second sequence 702b in a second set of subcarriers and/or on a second beam, and an mth sequence 702m in an mth set of subcarriers and/or on an mth beam, Para. 157, FIG. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lei with the teachings of Lin since Lei provides a technique for generating demodulation reference signals utilizing different frequency resources and beams, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Lin to permit demodulation reference signals to be generated from Zadoff Chu sequences of UE specific roots for transmissions through different frequency resources and beams.
In regard to Claim 9, as presented in the rejection of Claim 1, Lin teaches the set of sequence roots.
Lin fails to teach different sequence roots of the set of sequence roots are associated to one or more of: different cyclic shifts; different beams; or different transmission sources.
Lei teaches different sequence roots of the set of sequence roots are associated to one or more of: different cyclic shifts; different beams; or different transmission sources (sequences 702a, 702b, 702m may be respectively generated according to three different sequence configurations—e.g., three different sequence configurations that differ with respect to at least one of a root sequence index and/or a number of cyclic shifts, Para. 125, FIG. 7. The sequences 702a, 702b, 702m may be respectively generated according to the same sequence configuration or different sequence configurations—e.g., sequence configurations that differ with respect to at least one of a root sequence index and/or a number of cyclic shifts, Para. 126, FIG. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lei with the teachings of Lin since Lei provides a technique for generating demodulation reference signals utilizing different cyclic shifts, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Lin to permit demodulation reference signals to be generated from Zadoff Chu sequences of UE specific roots for transmissions through different cyclic shifts.
In regard to Claim 10, as presented in the rejection of Claim 1, Lin teaches the set of sequence roots.
Lin fails to teach the set of sequence roots is configured to the wireless device utilising Radio Resource Control layer signaling.
Lei teaches the set of sequence roots is configured to the wireless device utilising Radio Resource Control layer signaling (UEs are configured with the slot format (semi-statically/statically through radio resource control (RRC) signaling), Para. 54. One or more parameters may include a root sequence index used for generation of a sequence, another parameter, and/or a combination of parameters (e.g., a combination of a cyclic shift and a root index), Para. 81. The UE 404 may additionally determine a sequence configuration based on an RRC state of the UE 404, Para. 82).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lei with the teachings of Lin since Lei provides a technique for generating demodulation reference signals utilizing different cyclic shifts, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Lin to permit demodulation reference signals to be generated from Zadoff Chu sequences of UE specific roots for transmissions through different cyclic shifts.
In regard to Claim 15 (renumbered Claim 14), as presented in the rejection of Claim 2, Lin teaches the reference signaling.
Lin fails to teach the reference signaling is Channel State Information Reference Signaling or Demodulation Reference Signaling.
Lei teaches the reference signaling is Channel State Information Reference Signaling or Demodulation Reference Signaling (different DMRS sequence indexes may correspond to different IDs or different bits of an ID. The UE 404 may determine an ID of the UE 404, and the UE 404 may determine a DMRS sequence index for generating the at least one DMRS 428, Para. 93, FIG. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lei with the teachings of Lin since Lei provides a technique for generating demodulation reference signals utilizing sequence indexes, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Lin to permit demodulation reference signals to be generated from Zadoff Chu sequences of UE specific roots.
In regard to Claim 16 (renumbered Claim 15), as presented in the rejection of Claim 3, Lin teaches the reference signaling.
Lin fails to teach the reference signaling is Channel State Information Reference Signaling or Demodulation Reference Signaling.
Lei teaches the reference signaling is Channel State Information Reference Signaling or Demodulation Reference Signaling (different DMRS sequence indexes may correspond to different IDs or different bits of an ID. The UE 404 may determine an ID of the UE 404, and the UE 404 may determine a DMRS sequence index for generating the at least one DMRS 428, Para. 93, FIG. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lei with the teachings of Lin since Lei provides a technique for generating demodulation reference signals utilizing sequence indexes, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Lin to permit demodulation reference signals to be generated from Zadoff Chu sequences of UE specific roots.
In regard to Claim 19 (renumbered Claim 18), as presented in the rejection of Claim 3, Lin teaches the set of sequence roots.
Lin fails to teach different sequence roots of the set of sequence roots are associated to different frequency domain distribution of reference signaling.
Lei teaches different sequence roots of the set of sequence roots are associated to different frequency domain distribution of reference signaling (second configuration 720, to distinguish the sequences 702a, 702b, 702m from one another, the UE may frequency-division multiplex and/or space-division multiplex the sequences 702a, 702b, 702m. Accordingly, the UE may transmit a first sequence 702a in a first set of subcarriers and/or on a first beam, a second sequence 702b in a second set of subcarriers and/or on a second beam, and an mth sequence 702m in an mth set of subcarriers and/or on an mth beam, Para. 157, FIG. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lei with the teachings of Lin since Lei provides a technique for generating demodulation reference signals utilizing different frequency resources and beams, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Lin to permit demodulation reference signals to be generated from Zadoff Chu sequences of UE specific roots for transmissions through different frequency resources and beams.
In regard to Claim 20 (renumbered Claim 19), as presented in the rejection of Claim 3, Lin teaches the set of sequence roots.
Lin fails to teach different sequence roots of the set of sequence roots are associated to one or more of: different cyclic shifts; different beams; ordifferent transmission sources.
Lei teaches different sequence roots of the set of sequence roots are associated to one or more of: different cyclic shifts; different beams; ordifferent transmission sources (sequences 702a, 702b, 702m may be respectively generated according to three different sequence configurations—e.g., three different sequence configurations that differ with respect to at least one of a root sequence index and/or a number of cyclic shifts, Para. 125, FIG. 7. The sequences 702a, 702b, 702m may be respectively generated according to the same sequence configuration or different sequence configurations—e.g., sequence configurations that differ with respect to at least one of a root sequence index and/or a number of cyclic shifts, Para. 126, FIG. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lei with the teachings of Lin since Lei provides a technique for generating demodulation reference signals utilizing different cyclic shifts, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Lin to permit demodulation reference signals to be generated from Zadoff Chu sequences of UE specific roots for transmissions through different cyclic shifts.
In regard to Claim 21 (renumbered Claim 20), as presented in the rejection of Claim 3, Lin teaches the set of sequence roots.
Lin fails to teach the set of sequence roots is configured to the wireless device utilising Radio Resource Control layer signaling.
Lei teaches the set of sequence roots is configured to the wireless device utilising Radio Resource Control layer signaling (UEs are configured with the slot format (semi-statically/statically through radio resource control (RRC) signaling), Para. 54. One or more parameters may include a root sequence index used for generation of a sequence, another parameter, and/or a combination of parameters (e.g., a combination of a cyclic shift and a root index), Para. 81. The UE 404 may additionally determine a sequence configuration based on an RRC state of the UE 404, Para. 82).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lei with the teachings of Lin since Lei provides a technique for generating demodulation reference signals utilizing different cyclic shifts, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Lin to permit demodulation reference signals to be generated from Zadoff Chu sequences of UE specific roots for transmissions through different cyclic shifts.
Claim(s) 11 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Gao et al. (Pub. No.: US 20200235899 A1), hereafter referred to as Gao.
In regard to Claim 11, as presented in the rejection of Claim 1, Lin teaches the sequence roots.
Lin fails to teach different sets of sequence roots are associated to one or both of different communication directions and different types of reference signaling.
Gao teaches different sets of sequence roots are associated to one or both of different communication directions and different types of reference signaling (two RS sequence 201 and 202 (downlink and/or uplink RS sequences for one or more terminal devices), Para. 40, FIG. 2. The network device may thus transmit a downlink RS sequence to one or more terminal devices based on the allocated RS configuration while the terminal device may also transmit an uplink RS sequence based on its allocated RS configuration, Para. 42. The different RS sequences are to be generated based on different root sequences, Para. 80).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gao with the teachings of Lin since Gao provides a technique for utilizing different root sequences for generating downlink and uplink RS sequences, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Lin to permit generation of Zadoff Chu sequences to involve different root sequences between the transmission and reception of reference signals.
In regard to Claim 22 (renumbered Claim 21), as presented in the rejection of Claim 3, Lin teaches the sequence roots.
Lin fails to teach different sets of sequence roots are associated to one or both of different communication directions and different types of reference signaling.
Gao teaches different sets of sequence roots are associated to one or both of different communication directions and different types of reference signaling (two RS sequence 201 and 202 (downlink and/or uplink RS sequences for one or more terminal devices), Para. 40, FIG. 2. The network device may thus transmit a downlink RS sequence to one or more terminal devices based on the allocated RS configuration while the terminal device may also transmit an uplink RS sequence based on its allocated RS configuration, Para. 42. The different RS sequences are to be generated based on different root sequences, Para. 80).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gao with the teachings of Lin since Gao provides a technique for utilizing different root sequences for generating downlink and uplink RS sequences, which can be introduced into the arrangement of Lin to permit generation of Zadoff Chu sequences to involve different root sequences between the transmission and reception of reference signals.
Response to Arguments
I. Arguments for the Claim Objections
Page 3 of the Remarks presents the argument that Applicant confirms and appreciates the Examiner's renumbering of the claims, i.e., Claims 13-22 have been renumbered 12-21. As such, the claim objections have been addressed and Applicant requests the withdrawal of the objections for this reason. Although the examiner acknowledges that Applicant confirms the renumbering of the claims, i.e., Claims 13-22 have been renumbered 12-21, for purposes of appeal and clarity, the office action indicates the claim numbering as filed in 8/14/2023 in the preliminary amendment. Any future office action will indicate only the renumbered claims after Applicant files a claim set reflecting the renumbering of the claims.
II. Arguments for the Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Page 6 of the Remarks presents the argument that Independent Claims 1-4 and 12 are not directed to an abstract idea. Independent Claims 1-4 and 12 recite a wireless device, node computer storage medium and methods in a node and wireless device. A computer storage medium, wireless device and a node are explicitly not abstract ideas but are actual physical devices. This argument is not persuasive. The operation for “communicating based on reference signaling” in the context of Claim 1 encompasses a user manually communicating utilizing reference signaling. The step appears to be merely selections that take into account certain information, and, thus, not precluded from being performed by a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
A “wireless device” and “wireless communication network” of Claim 1 are elements to perform the step of Claim 1, and these elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of determining a value and a comparison) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic network computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Page 6 of the Remarks presents the argument that The reference signaling being based on a sequence root, the sequence root being one out of a set of sequence roots comprising at least two sequence roots. Human beings are simply not capable of performing these functions at the speeds required in a communications system and are not even capable of observing the digital communications without specialized equipment or evaluating them in real time. This argument is not persuasive. Claim 1 does not indicate any requirements for high speeds in communication beyond a human mind and manual human communications. Claim 1 does not indicate a communication requiring high speeds beyond human communication, and Claim 1 does not recite that the wireless device is even communicating with a device, much less a device requiring high speeds beyond human communication. Claim 1 recites “a communicating based on reference signaling, the reference signaling being based on a sequence root”, but does not include a device with which the communicating is being performed with, much less an arrangement of devices that is significantly more than generic computer components.
III. Arguments for the Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 102
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Page 11 of the Remarks presents the argument that Cited paragraphs [0020-22] of Lin make clear that while the UE specific root may be selected from a set of roots, the UE is only configured with a single UE specific root at a time that is used to generate a ZC sequence. This argument is not persuasive. Although a UE specific root from a set of roots is used at a certain time by a UE of Lin, this does not preclude the set of roots from being “configured to” the UE of Lin. In other words, the whole set of roots of Lin is available for utilization by a UE, and every root in the set of roots has a potential of being utilized by a UE of Lin.
Lin teaches in Para. 133: “Sequence hopping means each cell does not have a fixed single root; it can have different roots in different time slots. For example, one cell might select root 8 in a given time slot and then select root 9 in the next slot, and then select root 8 again in the following slot and so on” (emphasis added). This shows that multiple roots of a set of roots are utilized over time by a cell of Lin, and this indicates that a UE in the cell of Lin utilizes corresponding roots over time. As a result, a set of roots available over time for the potential utilization by a UE of Lin, is substantively the same as the set of sequence roots being configured to the wireless device of Claim 1. If there are clarifying features in the Specification of how a set of sequence roots is “configured to” a wireless device, which are not taught by Lin, such clarifying features are not positively recited in the language of Claim 1.
Page 11 of the Remarks presents the argument that In other words, Lin describes configuring a UE with a single, particular, root received in signaling. This argument is not persuasive. Although a UE of Lin is configured with a specific root, this does not preclude a set of roots of Lin itself from being “configured to” a UE. The “configured to”, in the limitation “the set of sequence roots being configured to the wireless device” of Claim 1, does not clearly require that the whole “set of sequence roots” is received in signaling by a wireless device. In other words, Claim 1 does not indicate that the set of sequence roots being “configured to” the wireless device requires that the wireless device receives the whole set of sequence roots in signaling. The whole set of roots of Lin is available over time for utilization by a UE, and every root in the set of roots has a potential of being utilized by a UE of Lin. As a result, a set of roots available over time for the potential utilization by a UE of Lin, is substantively the same as the set of sequence roots being configured to the wireless device of Claim 1.
Page 11 of the Remarks presents the argument that While the root may be selected from a set, Lin explicitly states that there is a "UE specific root" to which the UE is configured. This argument is not persuasive. The examiner notes that “the set of sequence roots being configured to the wireless device” of Claim 1 does not require that the “wireless device” is configured with reception of the whole set of sequence roots. The “configured to”, in the limitation “the set of sequence roots being configured to the wireless device” of Claim 1, does not clearly require that the wireless device is “configured” with the whole “set of sequence roots”. The limitation “the set of sequence roots being configured to the wireless device” of Claim 1 (emphasis added), only requires that the set of sequence roots itself is configured to the wireless device. A set of roots available over time for the potential utilization by a UE of Lin, is substantively the same as the set of sequence roots being configured to the wireless device of Claim 1.
Page 12 of the Remarks presents the argument that Applicant's configuring at least two sequence roots to the UE facilitates improved handling of reference signaling in particular in multi-transmission reception point setups and provides improved flexibility for reference signaling with little signaling overhead. This argument is not persuasive. Lin teaches in Para. 133: “Sequence hopping means each cell does not have a fixed single root; it can have different roots in different time slots. For example, one cell might select root 8 in a given time slot and then select root 9 in the next slot, and then select root 8 again in the following slot and so on” (emphasis added). This shows that multiple roots of a set of roots are utilized over time by a cell of Lin, and this indicates that a UE in the cell of Lin utilizes corresponding roots over time. As a result, a set of roots available over time for the potential utilization by a UE of Lin, is substantively the same as the set of sequence roots being configured to the wireless device of Claim 1. If there are clarifying features in the Specification of how a set of sequence roots is “configured to” a wireless device, which are not taught by Lin, such clarifying features are not positively recited in the language of Claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSHUA Y SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:30am-7pm 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, CHIRAG G SHAH can be reached at (571)272-3144. 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.
Joshua Smith
/J.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2477
3-7-2026
/CHIRAG G SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2477