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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The two information disclosure statements (IDSs) were both submitted on 01/28/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims 19, 25, and 31 state “wherein K sounding reference signal resource sets corresponding to any one of the N terminal devices belong to M sounding reference signal resource sets”. The “M” label is vague, since the claim language does not describe what “M” is. Also, the terminology “belong to” is vague, since the claim language does not describe the relationship between K and M. This terminology may mean K is a subset of M or K is part of an equation with M or K equals M.
Dependent claims 20-24, 26-30, and 32-36 do not resolve these issues. Therefore, claims 19-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 19-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In determining whether the claims are subject matter eligible, the examiner applies the guidance under MPEP 2106.
Step 1:
Claims 19-24 are directed to a method (ie. process), by a network device.
Claims 25-30 are directed to a method (ie. process), by a terminal device.
Claims 31-36 are directed to a system (ie. machine)
Independent claims 19, 25, and 31:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Independent claims 19 and 31 state “determining, by a network device, respective K sounding reference signal resource sets corresponding to each terminal device of N terminal devices in a first cell, wherein K sounding reference signal resource sets corresponding to any one of the N terminal devices belong to M sounding reference signal resource sets, and at least X sounding reference signal resource sets in corresponding K sounding reference signal resource sets are different between any two of the N terminal devices, wherein Mis less than N, K is less than M, M, N, and Kare all integers greater than or equal to 0, and X is an integer greater than or equal to 1”.
The claim places no limits on how this determining is performed. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” encompasses a human mentally assigning parts of a network signal. Therefore, this claim limitation falls within the Mental Process Grouping for evaluation/observation of indicating parts of a signal, which can be reasonably performed in the mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. Also, this claim limitation could be a mathematical expression of a signal, since the claim does not specifically describe the architecture. Therefore, this claim limitation falls within the Mathematical Concept Grouping.
Independent claim 25 states “wherein the configuration information indicates K sounding reference signal resource sets corresponding to the terminal device, the terminal device is one of N terminal devices in a first cell, K sounding reference signal resource sets corresponding to any one of the N terminal devices belong to M sounding reference signal resource sets, and the K sounding reference signal resource sets meet the following condition: at least X sounding reference signal resource sets in corresponding K sounding reference signal resource sets are different between any two of the N terminal devices, wherein M is less than N, K is less than M, M, N, and Kare all integers greater than or equal to 0, and X is an integer greater than or equal to 1.”
The claim places no limits on how this configuration is performed. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “indicates” encompasses a human mentally assigning parts of a network signal. Therefore, this claim limitation falls within the Mental Process Grouping for evaluation/observation of indicating parts of a signal, which can be reasonably performed in the mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. Also, this claim limitation could be a mathematical expression of a signal, since the claim does not specifically describe the architecture. Therefore, this claim limitation falls within the Mathematical Concept Grouping.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements:
A “method”, “network device”, “terminal device”, and an “apparatus, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories” (These are additional elements recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s). See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claims 19 and 31 state “sending” the configuration information, whereas claim 25 states “receiving” the configuration information and “sending” a SRS.
“sending” and “receiving” are additional elements that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “sending” and "receiving" in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step B:
These additional elements amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. These claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
The “network device”, “terminal device”, and an “apparatus, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories” claim limitations (mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The “sending” and “receiving” claim limitations (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TL/ Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607,610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); O/P Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network) (MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claims largely recite the use of generic technology using standard methods.
Even when all the elements are considered individually and in ordered combination, they do not amount of significantly more because the additional elements merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g. computer networks). The claims require a specific implementation to improve how those functions are carried out. The claims do not recite any improvement to the technical field.
Claims 24, 30, and 36 state “sending” and “receiving”. These claim limitations are about transmitting. These transmitting steps are explained within Step2A (Prong 2) and Step 2B and would be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claims 20-24, 26-30, and 32-36 have been reviewed and do not recite any additional elements that would overcome this 101 rejection. Instead they recite additional determinations and data gathering that could be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper or mathematical concepts. Therefore, claims 19-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claims 19-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. “Lee” [PGPUB 2016/0156395] in view of IWAI et al. (“Iwai”) [PGPUB 2020/0044805].
Regarding claim 19, the Lee reference discloses a method, comprising: determining, by a network device, respective K sounding reference signal resource sets corresponding to each terminal device of N terminal devices in a first cell wherein K sounding reference signal resource sets corresponding to any one of the N terminal devices belong to M sounding reference signal resource sets [ie. multiple UEs are in a group of SRS set (“K”) of multiple groupings (“M”) of UEs (“N”) in a base station cell; Lee; figure 9; paragraphs 0009, 0057, 0081-0082 and 0096], and
at least X sounding reference signal resource sets in corresponding K sounding reference signal resource sets [ie. a single SRS set (“X”) of the one grouping (“K”); Lee; para 0082 and 0092-0093],
wherein M is less than N, K is less than M, M, N, and K are all integers greater than or equal to 0, and X is an integer greater than or equal to 1 [ie. the total SRS within the number of orthogonal sequences is fewer than the number of UEs (“N”) and where a UE group of SRS is less than the total SRS sets; Lee; fig 9; para 0009, 0078, 0093, 0096, and 0119-0121]; and
sending, by the network device, configuration information to each terminal device of the N terminal devices, wherein the configuration information indicates the respective K sounding reference signal resource sets [Lee; para 0082 and 0130-0131].
The Lee reference discloses at least X sounding reference signal resource sets in corresponding K sounding reference signal resource sets but does not specifically disclose the X SRS sets are different between any two of the N terminal devices within the same group.
However, in the same field of endeavor, the Iwai reference discloses at least X sounding reference signal resource sets are different between any two of the N terminal devices [Iwai; fig 2, 4, and 11; para 0033 and 0037, 0103-0106, and 0113]. The Lee and Iwai references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to use sounding reference signals in the new radio access technology. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of different SRS sets within a cell, taught by Iwai, into the system, taught by Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been a high degree of flexibility in frequency scheduling [Iwai; para 0037].
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Lee-Iwai further discloses any two sounding reference signal resource sets in the M sounding reference signal resource sets are configured for a same quantity of times, or a difference between quantities of configuration times of any two sounding reference signal resource sets is less than or equal to 1 [ie. the SRS sets in group 1 and 2 are within one “quantity” of configuration time; Lee; fig 9; para 0082].
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Lee-Iwai further discloses each sounding reference signal set of the K sounding reference signal resource sets comprises a semi-persistent sounding reference signal resource set or an aperiodic sounding reference signal resource set [ie. allocating SRS for a certain period of time; Lee; para 0103-0104 and 0124] [ie. aperiodic; Iwai; para 0111-0114].
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Lee-Iwai further discloses X and K meet the following relationship: X=K-1 [ie. multiple SRS of the grouping (“K”) towards a single SRS; Lee; fig 9; para 0082] [Iwai; fig 4; para 0103-0104].
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Lee-Iwai further discloses each M, K, and N meet the following relationship: CKM≥N, wherein CKM≥N represents a combinatorial number of M and K [the term “combinatorial” is a broad term for “combining”; ie. multiplying M and K would be combining (9x3) which is bigger than 2 UEs per grouping; Lee; fig 9; para 0082].
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Lee-Iwai further discloses sending, by the network device, trigger signaling to a first terminal device of the N terminal devices, wherein the trigger signaling triggers the first terminal device to send a sounding reference signal (SRS) on one or more sounding reference signal resource sets in respective K sounding reference signal resource sets corresponding to the first terminal device; and receiving, by the network device, the SRS from the first terminal device [ie. base station (“network device”) informs (“triggers”) UEs (“terminal devices”); Lee; para 0084-0085 and 0098] [ie. SRS sent by UE based on triggers provided by base station (“network device”); Iwai; para 0112].
Regarding claim 25, the Lee reference discloses a method, comprising: receiving, by a terminal device, configuration information from a network device, wherein the configuration information indicates K sounding reference signal resource sets corresponding to the terminal device, the terminal device is one of N terminal devices in a first cell, K sounding reference signal resource sets corresponding to any one of the N terminal devices belong to M sounding reference signal resource sets [ie. multiple UEs are in a group of SRS set (“K”) of multiple groupings (“M”) of UEs (“N”) in a base station cell; Lee; figure 9; paragraphs 0009, 0057, 0081-0082 and 0096], and
and the K sounding reference signal resource sets meet the following condition: at least X sounding reference signal resource sets in corresponding K sounding reference signal resource sets [ie. a single SRS set (“X”) of the one grouping (“K”); Lee; para 0082 and 0092-0093],
wherein M is less than N, K is less than M, M, N, and Kare all integers greater than or equal to 0, and X is an integer greater than or equal to 1 [ie. the total SRS within the number of orthogonal sequences is fewer than the number of UEs (“N”) and where a UE group of SRS is less than the total SRS sets; Lee; fig 9; para 0009, 0078, 0093, 0096, and 0119-0121]; and
sending, by the terminal device, a sounding reference signal (SRS) to the network device on one or more sounding reference signal resource sets in the K sounding reference signal resource sets [Lee; para 0082 and 0130-0131].
The Lee reference discloses at least X sounding reference signal resource sets in corresponding K sounding reference signal resource sets but does not specifically disclose the X SRS sets are different between any two of the N terminal devices within the same group.
However, in the same field of endeavor, the Iwai reference discloses X sounding reference signal resource sets are different between any two of the N terminal devices [Iwai; fig 2, 4, and 11; para 0033 and 0037, 0103-0106, and 0113]. The Lee and Iwai references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to use sounding reference signals in the new radio access technology. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of different SRS sets within a cell, taught by Iwai, into the system, taught by Lee. The motivation for doing so would have been a high degree of flexibility in frequency scheduling [Iwai; para 0037].
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Lee-Iwai further discloses the K sounding reference signal resource sets further meet the following condition: any two sounding reference signal resource sets in the M sounding reference signal resource sets are configured for a same quantity of times, or a difference between quantities of configuration times of any two sounding reference signal resource sets is less than or equal to 1 [ie. the SRS sets in group 1 and 2 are within one “quantity” of configuration time; Lee; fig 9; para 0082].
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Lee-Iwai further discloses each sounding reference signal resource set of the K sounding reference signal resource sets comprises a semi-persistent sounding reference signal resource set or an aperiodic sounding reference signal resource set [ie. allocating SRS for a certain period of time; Lee; para 0103-0104 and 0124] [ie. aperiodic; Iwai; para 0111-0114].
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Lee-Iwai further discloses X and K meet the following relationship: X=K-1 [ie. multiple SRS of the grouping (“K”) towards a single SRS; Lee; fig 9; para 0082] [Iwai; fig 4; para 0103-0104].
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Lee-Iwai further discloses each M, K, and N meet the following relationship: CKM≥N, wherein CKM≥N represents a combinatorial number of M and K [the term “combinatorial” is a broad term for “combining”; ie. multiplying M and K would be combining (9x3) which is bigger than 2 UEs per grouping; Lee; fig 9; para 0082].
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Lee-Iwai further discloses receiving, by the terminal device, trigger signaling from the network device, wherein the trigger signaling triggers sending of the SRS on the one or more sounding reference signal resource sets in the K sounding reference signal resource sets [ie. base station (“network device”) informs (“triggers”) UEs (“terminal devices”); Lee; para 0084-0085 and 0098] [ie. SRS sent by UE based on triggers provided by base station (“network device”); Iwai; para 0112].
Regarding claims 31-36, the apparatus of claims 31-36 perform the similar steps as the method of claims 19-24. The combination of Lee-Iwai teaches the method of claims 19-24, as referenced above. The additional limitations of “apparatus, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories” are rejected with the citation of figure 10 and paragraphs 0129 and 0131 of Lee. Therefore, claims 31-36 are rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of claims 19-24, by the teachings of Lee-Iwai.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zarifi et al. [PGPUB 2018/0278450] describes sending configuration information to UEs for a plurality of SRS sequences.
Abdelghaffar et al. [PGPUB 2022/0232535] describes multiple SRS resource sets per-UE.
Zhu et al. [PGPUB 2018/0212711] describes multiple SRS symbols within multiple segments for multiple UEs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON D CARDONE whose telephone number is (571)272-3933. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8am-4pmEST.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/JASON D CARDONE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458