DETAILED ACTION
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendment filed 3/17/2026.
In the amendment, Applicant amended claims 1, 3, 15, and 31 and cancelled claims 2 and 4.
Claims 1, 3, 5-15, and 28-31 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 3/17/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 2 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and they are persuasive. Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 2 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Examiner has fully considered Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-10, filed 3/17/2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 but they are not persuasive.
On page 7, Applicant summarizes the prior art used to reject the claims and indicates traversal of the rejections. Applicant then recites some of the limitations of amended claim 1 and asserts that the prior art does not disclose these limitations.
On pages 8, Applicant argues that in Wang, for downlink transmission, the eNodeB makes the final decision on the pattern (based on one or more recommendations from the UE). (Applicant makes similar arguments for the uplink direction as well.) Applicant argues that this is different from the amended claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitation states that “wherein first configuration information is determined by the second communication node based on the target configuration information”. This is taught by Wang in the recommendation discussed by Applicant. See 11:12-16, for example, which indicates that (for downlink transmission) “it is the eNodeB that determines the RS pattern to be used based on several factors, which could for example include the UE recommendation…”. Thus, the first configuration information (the pattern) is determined by the second communication node (the eNodeB in downlink communication) based on the target information (the UE recommendation). Therefore, the amended claims are rejected using the Wang reference.
Applicant makes similar arguments regarding independent claim 15 as well as the dependent claims. For reasons similar to those discussed above, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6-9, 12, 13, 15, and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al (WO 2014/126519).
Regarding claim 1: Wang discloses a reference signal receiving method, performed by a first communication node, comprising:
receiving second configuration information, wherein the second configuration information comprises M sets of configuration information, and M is an integer greater than 1 (disclosed throughout; see 10:20-22, for example, which discloses that the UE acquires (known at the UEs) M (a plurality) of sets of configuration information (RS patterns); see also 10:28-30, for example, which indicates that the RS patterns selected from “a set of available RS patterns”);
selecting one set of configuration information from the second configuration information as target configuration information (disclosed throughout; see 10:12-12:23, for example, which discloses selecting a set of configuration information from the second configuration information; see 10:28-30, for example, which discloses that a set (the first and second RS patterns) is selected from the M sets (available RS patterns));
sending a configuration information index of the target configuration information to a second communication node (disclosed throughout; see 11:3-4, which discloses that the UE sends a recommendation of at least one RS pattern; clearly, this recommendation identifies/indexes the RS pattern(s) selected by the UE), wherein first configuration information is determined by the second communication node based on the target configuration information (disclosed throughout; see 11:12-16, for example, which indicates that (for downlink transmission) “it is the eNodeB that determines the RS pattern to be used based on several factors, which could for example include the UE recommendation…”);
receiving the first configuration information, wherein the first configuration information comprises a reference signal pattern (disclosed throughout; see 15:18-29, for example; the UE receives (from the eNodeB) first configuration information including a reference signal pattern (“an indicator for which RS pattern is used” via either a DCI or RRC/MAC message); see also 10:12-12:23, for example); and
receiving a reference signal according to the first configuration information (disclosed throughout; see step 420 of Figure 4A, for example; this discloses the eNodeB transmitting the selected DM-RS pattern, which is received by the corresponding UE; see also Figure 3 and 15:4-9, for example).
Regarding claim 15: Wang discloses a reference signal sending method, performed by a second communication node, comprising:
sending second configuration information, wherein the second configuration information comprises M sets of configuration information, and M is an integer greater than 1 (disclosed throughout; see 10:20-22, for example, which discloses that the UE acquires (known at the UEs) M (a plurality) of sets of configuration information (RS patterns); see also 10:28-30, for example, which indicates that the RS patterns selected from “a set of available RS patterns”);
receiving a configuration information index from a first communication node, and selecting, according to the configuration information index, from the second configuration information, configuration information corresponding to the configuration information index as target configuration information, wherein the target configuration information is one set of configuration information in the second configuration information (disclosed throughout; see 10:12-12:23, for example, which discloses selecting a set of configuration information from the second configuration information; see 10:28-30, for example, which discloses that a set (the first and second RS patterns) is selected from the M sets (available RS patterns); see also 11:3-4, which discloses that the UE sends a recommendation of at least one RS pattern; clearly, this recommendation identifies/indexes the RS pattern(s) selected by the UE; see also 11:12-16, for example, which indicates that (for downlink transmission) “it is the eNodeB that determines the RS pattern to be used based on several factors, which could for example include the UE recommendation…”);
determining the first configuration information according to the target configuration information (see 11:3-4, which discloses that the UE sends a recommendation of at least one RS pattern; clearly, this recommendation identifies/indexes the RS pattern(s) selected by the UE; see also 11:12-16, for example, which indicates that (for downlink transmission) “it is the eNodeB that determines the RS pattern to be used based on several factors, which could for example include the UE recommendation…”);
sending first configuration information, wherein the first configuration information comprises a reference signal pattern (disclosed throughout; see 15:18-29, for example; the UE receives (from the eNodeB) first configuration information including a reference signal pattern (“an indicator for which RS pattern is used” via either a DCI or RRC/MAC message); see also 10:12-12:23, for example); and
sending a reference signal according to the first configuration information (disclosed throughout; see step 420 of Figure 4A, for example; this discloses the eNodeB transmitting the selected DM-RS pattern, which is received by the corresponding UE; see also Figure 3 and 15:4-9, for example).
Regarding claim 28: Wang discloses a first communication node, comprising a memory, a processor and a computer program stored on the memory and executable on the processor (disclosed throughout; see Figure 6 as well as 16:14-19:13, for example; Figure 6 discloses a processor (501) as well as a memory (504) which stores program code to implement the functions described earlier), wherein the computer program, when executed by the processor, implements the reference signal receiving method of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 29: Wang discloses a second communication node, comprising a memory, a processor and a computer program stored on the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the computer program (disclosed throughout; see Figure 6 as well as 16:14-19:13, for example; Figure 6 discloses a processor (403) as well as a memory (404) which stores program code to implement the functions described earlier), when executed by the processor, implements the reference signal sending method of claim 15 (see the rejection of claim 15 above).
Regarding claim 30: Wang discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor (disclosed throughout; see Figure 6 as well as 16:14-19:13, for example; Figure 6 discloses a processor (501) as well as a memory (504) which stores program code to implement the functions described earlier), implements the reference signal receiving method of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 31: Wang discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor (disclosed throughout; see Figure 6 as well as 16:14-19:13, for example; Figure 6 discloses a processor (403) as well as a memory (404) which stores program code to implement the functions described earlier), implements the reference signal receiving method of claim 15 (see the rejection of claim 15 above).
Regarding claim 3: Wang discloses the limitations that the first configuration information and the target configuration information comprise at least one reference signal parameter having a same value, the first configuration information comprises at least one reference signal parameter, and the target configuration information comprises at least one reference signal parameter (disclosed throughout; see 11:3-19, for example, which disclose that the first configuration information and the target configuration information overlap in at least one reference signal parameter as the eNodeB uses the UE recommendation information to select the RS pattern and associated configuration information).
Regarding claim 6: Wang discloses the limitation that the reference signal pattern at least comprises a first density pattern and a second density pattern (disclosed throughout; see 15:4-9, for example, which as disclosed above discloses that the pattern received at the UE includes two different RS patterns; these patterns may include one of the patterns disclosed in Figure 5B-5E, and these patterns clearly include first and second density patterns; further, some of these individual patterns include a first density pattern (such as that in Figure 5B) and a second density pattern (such as the additional REs included in Figure 5C or 5D)).
Regarding claim 7: Wang discloses the limitation that a number of reference signal resource elements corresponding to the second density pattern is less than a number of reference signal resource elements corresponding to the first density pattern (disclosed throughout; see Figures 5B-E, for example, which illustrate that the density patterns have different numbers of resource elements for the reference signals; clearly a second density pattern (such as pattern 1) has fewer reference signal resource elements than a first density pattern (such as patterns 2-4)).
Regarding claim 8: Wang discloses the limitations that the number of the reference signal resource elements corresponding to the first density pattern is N times the number of the reference signal resource elements corresponding to the second density pattern, and N > 1 (disclosed throughout; see Figures 5B-5E, for example, which disclose a first density pattern (such as pattern 2 or 4) that has N times the number of reference signal resource elements as s second density pattern (such as pattern 1 or 3, respectively)).
Regarding claim 9: Wang discloses the limitations of sending trigger signaling or activation signaling, wherein the trigger signaling or the activation signaling is used to trigger or activate a first reference signal corresponding to the first density pattern (disclosed throughout; see 15:10-17, for example, which discloses that the UE may send a recommendation to use a particular RS pattern; this recommendation triggers or activates the pattern for at least one subsequent transmission).
Regarding claim 12: Wang discloses the limitations of determining a channel estimation quality according to a first reference signal corresponding to the first density pattern and a second reference signal corresponding to the second density pattern (disclosed throughout; see 11:3-11 and 15:18-29, for example, which discloses that the UE determines which patterns to recommend based in part of channel quality measurements and thus measures the quality of the first and second density patterns; as indicated throughout, these channel quality metrics are used for channel estimation and are thus channel estimation quality).
Regarding claim 13: Wang discloses the limitations of determining a demodulation channel according to the first reference signal corresponding to the first density pattern and the second reference signal corresponding to the second density pattern (disclosed throughout; see 10:12-12:23 and 15:4-9, for example; the UE may decode a message using at least two different RS patterns and thus determine a demodulation channel according to the two different density patterns associated with these RS patterns).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (WO 2014/126519) in view of Chai et al (US 2022/0166584).
Regarding claim 5: Wang discloses the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above. Wang does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 5 that the first configuration information further comprises at least one of: a reference signal sending period, time slot bias information, a reference signal sequence, reference signal sending power, or indication information for adding a position symbol to the reference signal. However, Chai discloses DMRS configuration information that includes at least a reference signal sequence (see “DMRS sequence configuration information” in [0061]) and information for adding a position symbol to the reference signal (see “The DMRS additional location configuration information is used to indicate an OFDM symbol that is additionally occupied in addition to the front-load symbol” in [0061]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wang to include at least reference signal sequence information and information for adding a position symbol to the reference signal in the configuration information as suggested by Chai. The rationale for doing so would have been to enable flexibility in the DMRS implementation by allowing the network to configure the DMRS sequence and or additional symbols.
Claims 10, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (WO 2014/126519) in view of Xie et al (US 2023/0224127).
Regarding claim 10: Wang discloses the limitations of parent claim 6 as indicated above. Wang does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 10 that a first reference signal corresponding to the first density pattern is in correlation with a second reference signal corresponding to the second density pattern. However, Xie discloses first and second reference signals in correlation with one another. For example, see [0195], which discloses first and second DMRS signals that are correlated. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wang such that the first and second reference signals (that correspond to different density patterns) are correlated. The rationale for doing so would have been to suppress the impact of interfering signals as suggested by Xie in [0002], [0003], and [0194], for example.
Regarding claim 11: Wang, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claim 10 as indicated above. Wang does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 11 that the first reference signal is in correlation with the second reference signal, and the correlation comprises at least one of: a first reference signal and a second reference signal having a same precoding are correlated; a first reference signal and a second reference signal having a same quasi-co-location configuration are correlated; a first reference signal and a second reference signal having a same Transmission Configuration Indicator are correlated; a first reference signal and a second reference signal having a same Transmission Configuration Indicator state are correlated; a first reference signal and a second reference signal having a same quasi-co-location type are correlated; a first reference signal and a second reference signal having a same port index are correlated; a first reference signal and a second reference signal sent to a same terminal are correlated. However, Xie discloses in [0195] that a first and second DMRS signals are correlated with one another as discussed above. Further, these DMRS signals that are correlated are part of a port set and thus have a same port index as disclosed throughout (see [0195], for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wang such that the first and second reference signals (that correspond to different density patterns) that are part of the same port set and thus have a same port index are correlated. The rationale for doing so would have been to suppress the impact of interfering signals as suggested by Xie in [0002], [0003], and [0194], for example.
Regarding claim 14: Wang discloses the limitations of parent claim 13 as indicated above. Wang does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 14 that determining the demodulation channel according to the first reference signal corresponding to the first density pattern and the second reference signal corresponding to the second density pattern comprises: performing a channel estimation on the second reference signal through a first sub-channel estimation module to obtain channel estimation information; linearly adding or concatenating the channel estimation information and channel estimation information corresponding to the first reference signal as an input of a second sub-channel estimation module; and determining the demodulation channel according to an output of the second sub-channel estimation module. However, Xie discloses the limitations of claim 14 throughout; see [0195], for example. Specifically, in [0195], Xie discloses performing channel estimation on the second reference signal to obtain channel estimation information (“the terminal device obtains a first channel coefficient through estimation based on a DMRS corresponding to the N first DMRS ports, and obtains a second channel coefficient through estimation based on a DMRS corresponding to the one or more second DMRS ports”). Then, the terminal demodulates the first signal by adding the first and second coefficients (“the terminal device processes the first signal based on the first channel coefficient and the second channel coefficient”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wang to generate the two coefficients based on the correlated DMRS signals to demodulate the first signal as suggested by Xie. The rationale for doing so would have been to suppress the impact of interfering signals as suggested by Xie in [0002], [0003], and [0194], for example.
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 Robert C Scheibel whose telephone number is (571)272-3169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Hassan A Phillips can be reached at 571-272-3940. 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.
Robert C. Scheibel
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2467
/Robert C Scheibel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467 April 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights