DETAILED ACTION
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendment filed 8/24/2026.
In the amendment, Applicant amended claims 1-4, 8-11, and 15-18.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 8/24/2026, with respect to the objections to claims 5,12, and 19 and they are persuasive. Examiner has withdrawn the objections to claims 5,12, and 19.
Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 8/24/2026, with respect to the objection to the specification and they are persuasive. Examiner has withdrawn the objection to the specification.
Examiner has fully considered Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-10, filed 8/24/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 but they are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on the newly-cited Nokia (R1-2301645) reference for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 2 and 16, the phrase “0, 1, 3, 4, 5, and 12” is believed to be a typographical error and should be changed to “0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 12”. The latter is supported in Figure 10 of Applicant’s specification, but the former is not.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mei ’857 et al (US 2024/0097857) in view of Mei ’057 et al (US 2024/0163057) in view of Nokia et al (R1- 2301645 – “Rel-18 UL and DL DMRS Enhancements”).
Regarding claim 1: Mei ’857 discloses a method performed by a network node, the method comprising:
co-scheduling a (disclosed throughout; see the title, abstract, and [0004], for example, which indicates that Mei ’857 discloses co-scheduling a first UE and a second UE);
generating a downlink control information (DCI) comprising DMRS information and an indication of a set of ports for the DMRS (disclosed throughout; see [0023], for example, which discloses that the DCI includes “various parameters, such as an antenna port(s) field, to indicate parameters associated with the non-data portion of the transmission (e.g., DMRS transmission)”; the antenna port field is the indication and the other parameters are the DMRS information), wherein the DCI indicates one or more ports from 0-11 for the (disclosed throughout; as indicated in [0025], for example, the DMRS ports for the co-scheduled UEs can include a combination of legacy DMRS ports and new (enhanced) DMRS ports; as indicated in Table 1, which shows an example table mapping legacy DMRS ports, these ports are in the range of 0-11); the legacy ports are assigned to the first UE) and one or more ports from 0-23 for the (disclosed throughout; as indicated in [0025], for example, the DMRS ports for the co-scheduled UEs can include a combination of legacy DMRS ports and new (enhanced) DMRS ports; as indicated in Table 3, which shows an example table combining mapping legacy and new (enhanced) DMRS ports, these ports are in the range of 0-23); the second UE can be assigned ports from this range);
sending the DCI to the (see step 250 of Figure 2B as well as step 210 of Figure 2A; as indicated in [0030], the signaling message comprises a DCI message); and
sending the (see step 230 of Figure 2A, for example; the first transmission is the co-scheduled message indicated by the signaling message (DCI); both the UE of Figure 2A and the co-scheduled UE are sent the transmission using the DMRS on the set of ports indicated in the DCI).
Mei ’857 does not explicitly describe the two co-scheduled UEs (the first UE and the second UE) as a legacy UE and an enhanced UE. However, Mei ’057 clearly discloses this in [0034], which discloses “Various scenarios” including “1) a scenario that the newly configured UE is co-scheduled with another newly configured UE, 2) a scenario that the newly configured UE is co-scheduled with the legacy UE with the same DMRS pattern as that of the newly configured UE, 3) a scenario that the newly configured UE is co-scheduled with the legacy UE with DMRS ports mapped on non-overlapping REs”. See also, [0051], which provides an example where “DMRS ports #0, #1, and #13 can be co-scheduled, where the DMRS ports #1 and #13 are of the newly configured UE and the DMRS port #0 is of the legacy UE”. To the extent that Mei ’857 does not explicitly disclose that the two co-scheduled UEs include a “legacy UE” and an “enhanced UE” (newly configured UE), this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. In particular, it would have been obvious to assign co-scheduled legacy DMRS ports to the legacy UE and the remaining ports to the new UE as suggested by Mei ’057. The rationale for doing so would have been to provide the system with the benefits of additional DMRS ports (including improved resource utilization) while maintaining backward compatibility to older “legacy” devices.
Mei ’857, modified, does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 1 of wherein seven or eight layers are supported for a maximum of one symbol per DMRS location and using three code division multiplexing (CDM) groups without data, wherein the set of ports indicated comprises one of: ports 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 12, ports 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, and 13, ports 0, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17, ports 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, and 13, or ports 0, 1, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17. However, Nokia discloses these limitations. For example, see the last column of Table 6 in section 2.3-C on pp. 10-11, which in rows 3 and 4 show 7 and 8 DRMS ports (corresponding to 7 and 8 layers, respectively). As indicated in the paragraph above Table 6, this is for a maximum of one symbol per DMRS location (maxLength=1) and as indicated in the column to the left of the last column, this corresponds to 3 CDM groups without data. Further, the set of ports includes 0,1,2,3,4,5,12 (in row 3) and 0,1,2,3,4,5,12,13 (in row 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Mei ’857, modified, to include at least the DMRS port combinations of the third and fourth rows of Table 6 in section 2.3-C for two codewords of Nokia. The rationale for doing so would have been to “enhance multiplexing capacity of uplink and downlink demodulation reference signal (DMRS)” as suggested by Nokia in the first paragraph of section 2 on p. 3.
Regarding claim 15: Mei ’857 discloses a network node apparatus comprising:
a processor (see processor electronics 510 of Figure 5, for example); and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the apparatus to (see [0060], which discloses that the node (such as a network node) can include a computer readable medium or memory for storing software to be run by the processor):
co-schedule a (disclosed throughout; see the title, abstract, and [0004], for example, which indicates that Mei ’857 discloses co-scheduling a first UE and a second UE);
generate a downlink control information (DCI) comprising DMRS information and an indication of a set of ports for the DMRS (disclosed throughout; see [0023], for example, which discloses that the DCI includes “various parameters, such as an antenna port(s) field, to indicate parameters associated with the non-data portion of the transmission (e.g., DMRS transmission)”; the antenna port field is the indication and the other parameters are the DMRS information), wherein the DCI indicates one or more ports from 0-11 for the (disclosed throughout; as indicated in [0025], for example, the DMRS ports for the co-scheduled UEs can include a combination of legacy DMRS ports and new (enhanced) DMRS ports; as indicated in Table 1, which shows an example table mapping legacy DMRS ports, these ports are in the range of 0-11); the legacy ports are assigned to the first UE) and one or more ports from 0-23 for the (disclosed throughout; as indicated in [0025], for example, the DMRS ports for the co-scheduled UEs can include a combination of legacy DMRS ports and new (enhanced) DMRS ports; as indicated in Table 3, which shows an example table combining mapping legacy and new (enhanced) DMRS ports, these ports are in the range of 0-23); the second UE can be assigned ports from this range);
send the DCI to the (see step 250 of Figure 2B as well as step 210 of Figure 2A; as indicated in [0030], the signaling message comprises a DCI message); and
send the (see step 230 of Figure 2A, for example; the first transmission is the co-scheduled message indicated by the signaling message (DCI); both the UE of Figure 2A and the co-scheduled UE are sent the transmission using the DMRS on the set of ports indicated in the DCI).
Mei ’857 does not explicitly describe the two co-scheduled UEs (the first UE and the second UE) as a legacy UE and an enhanced UE. However, Mei ’057 clearly discloses this in [0034], which discloses “Various scenarios” including “1) a scenario that the newly configured UE is co-scheduled with another newly configured UE, 2) a scenario that the newly configured UE is co-scheduled with the legacy UE with the same DMRS pattern as that of the newly configured UE, 3) a scenario that the newly configured UE is co-scheduled with the legacy UE with DMRS ports mapped on non-overlapping REs”. See also, [0051], which provides an example where “DMRS ports #0, #1, and #13 can be co-scheduled, where the DMRS ports #1 and #13 are of the newly configured UE and the DMRS port #0 is of the legacy UE”. To the extent that Mei ’857 does not explicitly disclose that the two co-scheduled UEs include a “legacy UE” and an “enhanced UE” (newly configured UE), this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. In particular, it would have been obvious to assign co-scheduled legacy DMRS ports to the legacy UE and the remaining ports to the new UE as suggested by Mei ’057. The rationale for doing so would have been to provide the system with the benefits of additional DMRS ports (including improved resource utilization) while maintaining backward compatibility to older “legacy” devices.
Mei ’857, modified, does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 1 of wherein seven or eight layers are supported for a maximum of one symbol per DMRS location and using three code division multiplexing (CDM) groups without data, wherein the set of ports indicated comprises one of: ports 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 12, ports 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, and 13, ports 0, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17, ports 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, and 13, or ports 0, 1, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17. However, Nokia discloses these limitations. For example, see the last column of Table 6 in section 2.3-C on pp. 10-11, which in rows 3 and 4 show 7 and 8 DRMS ports (corresponding to 7 and 8 layers, respectively). As indicated in the paragraph above Table 6, this is for a maximum of one symbol per DMRS location (maxLength=1) and as indicated in the column to the left of the last column, this corresponds to 3 CDM groups without data. Further, the set of ports includes 0,1,2,3,4,5,12 (in row 3) and 0,1,2,3,4,5,12,13 (in row 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Mei ’857, modified, to include at least the DMRS port combinations of the third and fourth rows of Table 6 in section 2.3-C for two codewords of Nokia. The rationale for doing so would have been to “enhance multiplexing capacity of uplink and downlink demodulation reference signal (DMRS)” as suggested by Nokia in the first paragraph of section 2 on p. 3.
Regarding claims 5 and 19: Mei ’857 discloses the limitations that the legacy UE and the enhanced UE are co-scheduled with two CDM groups or three CDM groups (disclosed throughout; for example, see [0043] and [0044], for example, which discloses an example where the number of CDM groups is equal to 2).
Claims 2-4, 6-14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mei ’857 et al (US 2024/0097857) Mei ’057 et al (US 2024/0163057) in view of NTT Docomo (R1-2301775 – “FL summary on DMRS#2”) in view of Nokia et al (R1- 2301645 – “Rel-18 UL and DL DMRS Enhancements”).
Regarding claim 8: Mei ’857 discloses a method performed by a user equipment (UE), the method comprising:
receiving, from a network node, a downlink control information (DCI) comprising DMRS information and an indication of a set of ports for DMRS (disclosed throughout; see [0023], for example, which discloses that the DCI includes “various parameters, such as an antenna port(s) field, to indicate parameters associated with the non-data portion of the transmission (e.g., DMRS transmission)”; the antenna port field is the indication and the other parameters are the DMRS information), wherein the UE is capable of using enhanced DMRS ports (disclosed throughout; see [0022], for example, which discloses that the UE is capable of using the “alternative/new approach(es) that can allow mapping of more DMRS ports”) and is co-scheduled with a (disclosed throughout; see the title, abstract, and [0004], for example, which indicates that Mei ’857 discloses co-scheduling a first UE and a second UE);
determining the ports based on the DMRS information and the indication by interpreting (disclosed throughout; see [0039] and Table 3, for example, which indicate that the DMRS ports are determined based on the table and DMRS information), wherein the DCI indicates one or more ports from 0-11 for the (disclosed throughout; as indicated in [0025], for example, the DMRS ports for the co-scheduled UEs can include a combination of legacy DMRS ports and new (enhanced) DMRS ports; as indicated in Table 1, which shows an example table mapping legacy DMRS ports, these ports are in the range of 0-11); the legacy ports are assigned to the first UE) and one or more ports from 0-23 for the UE (disclosed throughout; as indicated in [0025], for example, the DMRS ports for the co-scheduled UEs can include a combination of legacy DMRS ports and new (enhanced) DMRS ports; as indicated in Table 3, which shows an example table combining mapping legacy and new (enhanced) DMRS ports, these ports are in the range of 0-23); the second UE can be assigned ports from this range); and
receiving, from the network node, the DMRS on the set of ports indicated in the DCI (see step 230 of Figure 2A, for example; the first transmission is the co-scheduled message indicated by the signaling message (DCI); both the UE of Figure 2A and the co-scheduled UE are sent the transmission using the DMRS on the set of ports indicated in the DCI).
Mei ’857 does not explicitly describe the second UE as a legacy UE. However, Mei ’057 clearly discloses this in [0034], which discloses “Various scenarios” including “1) a scenario that the newly configured UE is co-scheduled with another newly configured UE, 2) a scenario that the newly configured UE is co-scheduled with the legacy UE with the same DMRS pattern as that of the newly configured UE, 3) a scenario that the newly configured UE is co-scheduled with the legacy UE with DMRS ports mapped on non-overlapping REs”. See also, [0051], which provides an example where “DMRS ports #0, #1, and #13 can be co-scheduled, where the DMRS ports #1 and #13 are of the newly configured UE and the DMRS port #0 is of the legacy UE”. To the extent that Mei ’857 does not explicitly disclose that the two co-scheduled UEs include a “legacy UE” and an “enhanced UE” (newly configured UE), this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. In particular, it would have been obvious to assign co-scheduled legacy DMRS ports to the legacy UE and the remaining ports to the new UE as suggested by Mei ’057. The rationale for doing so would have been to provide the system with the benefits of additional DMRS ports (including improved resource utilization) while maintaining backward compatibility to older “legacy” devices.
Mei ’857, modified, does not disclose storing a set of tables that correspond to different demodulation reference signal (DMRS) conditions. However, NTT Docomo is a document related to solving the same problem as Mei ‘857 of “increasing DMRS ports” (see the heading of section 2, for example). Further, NTT Docomo discloses a set of tables the correspond to different DMRS conditions. For example, see tables 7.3.1.2.2-1-X to 7.3.1.2.2-4-X, which disclose tables corresponding to four combinations of DMRS type and symbol length. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Mei ’857 to include additional DMRS port mappings in the tables as suggested in NTT Docomo. The rationale for doing so would have been to allow more flexibility in resource assignment between legacy and enhanced DMRS ports.
Mei ’857, modified, does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 1 of wherein seven or eight layers are supported for a maximum of one symbol per DMRS location and using three code division multiplexing (CDM) groups without data, wherein the set of ports indicated comprises one of: ports 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 12, ports 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, and 13, ports 0, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17, ports 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, and 13, or ports 0, 1, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17. However, Nokia discloses these limitations. For example, see the last column of Table 6 in section 2.3-C on pp. 10-11, which in rows 3 and 4 show 7 and 8 DRMS ports (corresponding to 7 and 8 layers, respectively). As indicated in the paragraph above Table 6, this is for a maximum of one symbol per DMRS location (maxLength=1) and as indicated in the column to the left of the last column, this corresponds to 3 CDM groups without data. Further, the set of ports includes 0,1,2,3,4,5,12 (in row 3) and 0,1,2,3,4,5,12,13 (in row 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Mei ’857, modified, to include at least the DMRS port combinations of the third and fourth rows of Table 6 in section 2.3-C for two codewords of Nokia. The rationale for doing so would have been to “enhance multiplexing capacity of uplink and downlink demodulation reference signal (DMRS)” as suggested by Nokia in the first paragraph of section 2 on p. 3.
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 16: Mei ’857, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claims 1 and 15 as indicated above. Mei ‘857, modified above, also discloses the limitations that the indication comprises a row value of a table corresponding to the DMRS information, wherein a row corresponding to the row value indicates the DMRS is sent on ports 0, 1, 3, 4, 5, and 12 (see the last column of the third row of Table 6 in section 2.3-C of Nokia).
Regarding claims 3 and 17: Mei ’857, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claims 1 and 15 as indicated above. Mei ‘857, modified above, also discloses the limitations that the indication comprises a row value of a table corresponding to the DMRS information, wherein a row corresponding to the row value indicates the DMRS is sent on ports 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, and 13 (see the last column of the third row of Table 6 in section 2.3-C of Nokia).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20: Mei ’857, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claims 1, 8, and 15 as indicated above. Mei ‘857 does not explicitly disclose the limitations that the DMRS information includes DMRS type, DMRS symbol length information, and a number of DMRS CDM group(s) without data. However, NTT Docomo discloses separate tables that correspond to the DMRS type (dmrs-Type) and DMRS symbol length information (maxLength) and further indicate the number of DMRS CDM groups without data (see column 2 of the table). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Mei ’857 to utilize multiple tables corresponding to the different combinations of DMRS type and DMRS symbol length and to continue to indicate the number of CDM groups (as already taught in Mei ’857). This requires providing the UEs with information indicating these parameters to properly identify the table to which the index corresponds. The rationale for doing so would have been to allow for additional configuration flexibility by allowing different DMRS port and number of CDM groups combinations based on the DMRS type and symbol length as suggested in NTT Docomo.
Regarding claims 7 and 14: Mei ’857, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claims 6 and 13 as indicated above. Mei ‘857 does not explicitly disclose the limitations that the DMRS type is Type 2, and the DMRS symbol length information indicates a maximum one symbol per DMRS location. However, NTT Docomo discloses separate tables that correspond to the DMRS type (dmrs-Type) and DMRS symbol length information (maxLength) and further indicate the number of DMRS CDM groups without data (see column 2 of the table). One of those tables (7.3.1.2.2-3-X) corresponds to DMRS type 2 (dmrs-Type = eType2) and DMRS symbol length indicating a maximum of one symbol per location (maxLength = 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Mei ’857 to utilize multiple tables corresponding to the different combinations of DMRS type and DMRS symbol length and to continue to indicate the number of CDM groups (as already taught in Mei ’857). It would have further been obvious to include DMRS type 2 as well as the maximum symbol length of one as suggested by NTT Docomo. The rationale for doing so would have been to allow for additional configuration flexibility by allowing different DMRS port and number of CDM groups combinations based on the DMRS type and symbol length as suggested in NTT Docomo.
Regarding claim 9: Mei ’857, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claims 1 and 15 as indicated above. Mei ‘857, modified above, also discloses the limitations that the indication comprises a row value of a table corresponding to the DMRS information, wherein a row corresponding to the row value indicates the DMRS is sent on ports 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, and 13 (see the last column of the third row of Table 6 in section 2.3-C of Nokia).
Regarding claim 12: Mei ’857 discloses the limitations that the legacy UE and the enhanced UE are co-scheduled with two CDM groups or three CDM groups (disclosed throughout; for example, see [0043] and [0044], for example, which discloses an example where the number of CDM groups is equal to 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 10, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 September 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights