DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of the present application is a continuation of U.S. Non-Provisional Application No. 17/943,386, filed September 13, 2022, which is a continuation of U.S. Non-Provisional Application No. 17/019,928, filed September 14, 2020, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 11,671,294 on June 6, 2023, which is a continuation of Non-Provisional Application No. 16/037,133, filed on July 17, 2018, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 10,779,311 on September 15, 2020, which is a continuation of U.S. Non-Provisional Application No. 14/760,407, filed on July 10, 2015, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 10,051,654 on August 14, 2018, which is the 371 National Stage of International Application No. PCT/US2014/11811, filed January 16, 2024, which claims priority from U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/863,324, filed August 7, 2013, U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/821,168, filed May 8, 2013.
Examiner's Notes
3. Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Preliminary Amendment
4. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s submission of the preliminary amendment on May 31, 2024. Claim 1 has been amended; claims 2-20 have been added.
Upon entering the amendment, claims 1-20 are pending. This communication is considered fully responsive and sets forth below.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s submission of information disclosure statement (IDS), dated on April 22, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
6. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
7. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,996,964.
Regarding claim 1, it recites, “A method implemented by a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), the method comprising:
receiving configuration information, the configuration information comprising a plurality of parameters indicative of a plurality of transmission schedules;
receiving an uplink grant for an uplink transmission;
determining a DM-RS transmission schedule for the uplink transmission based on the plurality of parameters; and
transmitting the uplink transmission in accordance with the uplink grant.”
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,996,964 recites, “A method implemented by a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) the method comprising:
receiving configuration information, the configuration information comprising a plurality of demodulation reference signal (DM-RS) parameters indicative of a plurality of DM-RS transmission schedules;
receiving an uplink grant for an uplink transmission; and
transmitting the uplink transmission in accordance with the uplink grant,
wherein a DM-RS transmission schedule for the uplink transmission is determined based on the uplink grant and the plurality of DM-RS transmission parameters,
wherein the DM-RS transmission schedule corresponds to which one or more orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) symbols of the uplink transmission include one or more DM-RSs.”
Both claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,996,964 are method-step claim, having the same preamble, i.e., “A method implemented by a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU).” Here are the limitation mappings:
for the first step, i.e., “receiving configuration information, the configuration information comprising a plurality of parameters indicative of a plurality of transmission schedules,”
the limitation of “a plurality of demodulation reference signal (DM-RS) parameters” indicated in italics in the first receiving-step of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,996,964 teaches “a plurality of parameters;”
in fact, the first receiving-step in claim 1 of the patent, i.e., “receiving configuration information, the configuration information comprising a plurality of demodulation reference signal (DM-RS) parameters indicative of a plurality of DM-RS transmission schedules,” teaches this limitation;
for the second step, i.e., “receiving an uplink grant for an uplink transmission,”
claim 1 of the patent includes the same limitation;
for the third step, i.e., “determining a DM-RS transmission schedule for the uplink transmission based on the plurality of parameters,”
the first wherein-clause limitation in claim 1 of the patent, i.e., “wherein a DM-RS transmission schedule for the uplink transmission is determined based on the uplink grant and the plurality of DM-RS transmission parameters” indicated in italics, teaches this limitation;
for the last step, i.e., “transmitting the uplink transmission in accordance with the uplink grant,”
claim 1 of the patent includes the same limitation as indicated in italics above;
Based on the information presented, claim 1 is merely a broader version of the claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,996,964, such as by eliminating the last wherein-clause “wherein the DM-RS transmission schedule corresponds to which one or more orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) symbols of the uplink transmission include one or more DM-RSs.”
It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA).
Same rationale applies to claims 2-20 as follows:
8. Claims 2-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,996,964.
9. Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,996,964.
10. Claims 6-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 3, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,996,964, individually.
11. Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,996,964.
12. Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,996,964.
13. Claims 11-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,996,964.
14. Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,996,964.
15. . Claims 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11, 13, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,996,964, individually.
16. Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,996,964.
17. Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,996,964.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
18. 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 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.
19. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the1 rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
20. Claims 1-4, 7, 10-14, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US 2014/0362747).
Regarding claim 1, Yang et al. teach the method implemented by a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) (paragraph [0068] lines 1-15; Examiner’s Notes: UE depicted in FIG. 7 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU)” in the instant application), the method comprising:
receiving configuration information (paragraph [0118] lines 1-17; Examiner’s Notes: receiving a UL-DL configuration, e.g., in step S702 as illustrated in FIG. 7, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “receiving configuration information” in the instant application),
the configuration information comprising a plurality of parameters indicative of a plurality of transmission schedules (paragraph [0068] lines 1-15; Examiner’s Notes: the schedules corresponding to UL and DL transmissions in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a plurality of transmission schedules;”
in fact, the UL-DL configuration indicating parameters/values on the schedules corresponding to UL and DL transmissions in the prior art teaches the limitation of “the configuration information comprising a plurality of parameters indicative of a plurality of transmission schedules” in the instant application);
receiving an uplink grant for an uplink transmission (paragraph [0068] lines 1-15; Examiner’s Notes: receiving UL grant as illustrated in step S702 in FIG. 7 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “receiving an uplink grant for an uplink transmission” in the instant application);
determining a DM-RS transmission schedule for the uplink transmission based on the plurality of parameters (paragraph [0006] lines 1-27; Examiner’s Notes: determining/identifying the DMRS-related filed in scheduling information for UL transmission based on the parameters/values corresponding to the transmission in the prior art teaches the limitation of “determining a DM-RS transmission schedule for the uplink transmission based on the plurality of parameters” in the instant application); and
transmitting the uplink transmission in accordance with the uplink grant (paragraph [0118] lines 1-17; Examiner’s Notes: transmitting the information in accordance with UL grant, as illustrated in step S704 in FIG. 7, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “transmitting the uplink transmission in accordance with the uplink grant” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 2, Yang et al. further teach the method, wherein the plurality of parameters comprises a plurality of demodulation reference signal (DM-RS) parameters indicative of a plurality of DM-RS transmission schedules (paragraph [0006] lines 1-27; Examiner’s Notes: the parameters/values indicated in the DMRS-related filed in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a plurality of demodulation reference signal (DM-RS) parameters;”
in fact, the parameters/values indicated in the DMRS-related filed corresponding to the transmission schedules in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the plurality of parameters comprises a plurality of demodulation reference signal (DM-RS) parameters indicative of a plurality of DM-RS transmission schedules” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 3, Yang et al. further teach the method, wherein the DM-RS transmission schedule for the uplink transmission is determined based on the uplink grant and the plurality of DM-RS transmission parameters (paragraph [0006] lines 1-27; Examiner’s Notes: determining/identifying the DMRS transmission schedule for UL transmission based on the UL grant and the parameters/values indicated in the DMRS-related filed in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the DM-RS transmission schedule for the uplink transmission is determined based on the uplink grant and the plurality of DM-RS transmission parameters” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 4, Yang et al. further teach the method, wherein the DM-RS transmission schedule corresponds to which orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) symbols of the uplink transmission include DM-RSs (paragraph [0077] lines 1-14; Examiner’s Notes: the DMRS scheduling including DMRSs corresponds to OFDM symbols of UL transmission in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the DM-RS transmission schedule corresponds to which orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) symbols of the uplink transmission include DM-RSs” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 7, Yang et al. further teach the method, wherein the uplink transmission comprises a physical uplink shared channel transmission (paragraph [0068] lines 1-15; Examiner’s Notes: transmitting via a PUSCH as illustrated in step S704 in FIG. 7 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the uplink transmission comprises a physical uplink shared channel transmission” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 10, Yang et al. further teach the method, wherein the configuration information is received via a radio resource control (RRC) message (paragraph [0098] lines 1-12; Examiner’s Notes: receiving the configuration via the RRC signaling in the prior art teaches the limitation of “the configuration information is received via a radio resource control (RRC) message” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 11, Yang et al. teach the wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) (paragraphs [0068] lines 1-15 & [0177] lines 1-18; Examiner’s Notes: both UE depicted in FIG. 7 and UE120 depicted in FIG. 20 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU)” in the instant application) comprising
a processor (paragraph [0177] lines 1-18; Examiner’s Notes: processor 122 in UE120 depicted in FIG. 20 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a processor” in the instant application) and
memory (paragraph [0177] lines 1-18; Examiner’s Notes: memory 124 in UE120 depicted in FIG. 20 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “memory” in the instant application), the processor and memory configured to:
receive configuration information (paragraph [0118] lines 1-17; Examiner’s Notes: receiving a UL-DL configuration, e.g., in step S702 as illustrated in FIG. 7, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “receive configuration information” in the instant application),
the configuration information comprising a plurality of parameters indicative of a plurality of transmission schedules (paragraph [0068] lines 1-15; Examiner’s Notes: the schedules corresponding to UL and DL transmissions in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a plurality of transmission schedules;”
in fact, the UL-DL configuration indicating parameters/values on the schedules corresponding to UL and DL transmissions in the prior art teaches the limitation of “the configuration information comprising a plurality of parameters indicative of a plurality of transmission schedules” in the instant application);
receive an uplink grant for an uplink transmission (paragraph [0068] lines 1-15; Examiner’s Notes: receiving UL grant as illustrated in step S702 in FIG. 7 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “receive an uplink grant for an uplink transmission” in the instant application);
determine a DM-RS transmission schedule for the uplink transmission based on the plurality of parameters (paragraph [0006] lines 1-27; Examiner’s Notes: determining/identifying the DMRS-related filed in scheduling information for UL transmission based on the parameters/values corresponding to the transmission in the prior art teaches the limitation of “determine a DM-RS transmission schedule for the uplink transmission based on the plurality of parameters” in the instant application); and
transmit the uplink transmission in accordance with the uplink grant (paragraph [0118] lines 1-17; Examiner’s Notes: transmitting the information in accordance with UL grant, as illustrated in step S704 in FIG. 7, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “transmit the uplink transmission in accordance with the uplink grant” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 12, Yang et al. further teach the WTRU, wherein the plurality of parameters comprises a plurality of demodulation reference signal (DM-RS) parameters indicative of a plurality of DM-RS transmission schedules (paragraph [0006] lines 1-27; Examiner’s Notes: the parameters/values indicated in the DMRS-related filed in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a plurality of demodulation reference signal (DM-RS) parameters;”
in fact, the parameters/values indicated in the DMRS-related filed corresponding to the transmission schedules in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the plurality of parameters comprises a plurality of demodulation reference signal (DM-RS) parameters indicative of a plurality of DM-RS transmission schedules” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 13, Yang et al. further teach the WTRU, wherein the DM-RS transmission schedule for the uplink transmission is determined based on the uplink grant and the plurality of DM-RS transmission parameters (paragraph [0006] lines 1-27; Examiner’s Notes: determining/identifying the DMRS transmission schedule for UL transmission based on the UL grant and the parameters/values indicated in the DMRS-related filed in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the DM-RS transmission schedule for the uplink transmission is determined based on the uplink grant and the plurality of DM-RS transmission parameters” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 14, Yang et al. further teach the WTRU, wherein the DM-RS transmission schedule corresponds to which orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) symbols of the uplink transmission include DM-RSs (paragraph [0077] lines 1-14; Examiner’s Notes: the DMRS scheduling including DMRSs corresponds to OFDM symbols of UL transmission in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the DM-RS transmission schedule corresponds to which orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) symbols of the uplink transmission include DM-RSs” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 17, Yang et al. further teach the WTRU, wherein the uplink transmission comprises a physical uplink shared channel transmission (paragraph [0068] lines 1-15; Examiner’s Notes: transmitting via a PUSCH as illustrated in step S704 in FIG. 7 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the uplink transmission comprises a physical uplink shared channel transmission” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 20, Yang et al. further teach the WTRU, wherein the configuration information is received via a radio resource control (RRC) message (paragraph [0098] lines 1-12; Examiner’s Notes: receiving the configuration via the RRC signaling in the prior art teaches the limitation of “the configuration information is received via a radio resource control (RRC) message” in the instant application).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
21. 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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
22. Claims 5, 6, 15, and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2014/0362747) in view of Park et al. (US 2015/0029966).
Regarding claim 5, Yang et al. teach the method without explicitly teaching mapping a DM-RS transmission to a single orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) symbol of the uplink transmission.
Park et al. for example, from a similar field of endeavor, teach the subject matter, wherein the DM-RS transmission schedule is characterized by a DM-RS transmission being mapped to a single orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) symbol of the uplink transmission (paragraph [0058] lines 1-21; Examiner’s Notes: the single carrier frequency division multiplexing (SC-FDM) symbol regards to the OFDM in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a single orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) symbol;”
in fact, scheduling/characterizing the DMRS transmission by mapping/characterizing to the single carrier frequency division multiplexing (SC-FDM) symbol of the UL transmission in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the DM-RS transmission schedule is characterized by a DM-RS transmission being mapped to a single orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) symbol of the uplink transmission” in the instant application).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the method as taught by Park et al. in the system of Yang et al.
The motivation for implementing mapping a DM-RS transmission to a single orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) symbol of the uplink transmission is to further enhance the mechanism for receiving a channel state information (CSI)-reference signal (RS) from a wireless communication system by a user device, including receiving resource configuration information on the CSI-RS and receiving the CSI-RS on the basis of the resource configuration information on the CIS-RS, wherein the resource configuration information on the CSI-RS includes information on a cell specific-RS (CRS) related to the CSI-RS, and the user device assumes that an antenna port related to information on the CRS and an antenna port used for transmitting CSI-RS corresponding to the resource configuration information on the CSI-RS are quasi co-located.
Regarding claim 6, Yang et al. teach the method, wherein the uplink transmission is transmitted over a slot (paragraph [0048] lines 1-11; Examiner’s Notes: the UL slot in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a slot;”
in fact, transmitting over the UL slot in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the uplink transmission is transmitted over a slot” in the instant application).
Yang et al. teach the method without explicitly teaching transmitting a DM-RS in a first OFDM symbol of the slot.
Park et al. for example, from a similar field of endeavor, teach the subject matter, the DM-RS transmission schedule indicates that a DM-RS is to be transmitted in a first OFDM symbol of the slot (paragraphs [0049] lines 1-20 & [0062] lines 1-21; Examiner’s Notes: the first OFDM symbol of the subframe/slot in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a first OFDM symbol of the slot;”
in fact, scheduling/indicating the DMRS transmission in the first OFDM symbol of the subframe/slot in the prior art teaches the limitation of “the DM-RS transmission schedule indicates that a DM-RS is to be transmitted in a first OFDM symbol of the slot” in the instant application).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the method as taught by Park et al. in the system of Yang et al.
The motivation for implementing transmitting a DM-RS in a first OFDM symbol of the slot is to further enhance the mechanism for receiving a channel state information (CSI)-reference signal (RS) from a wireless communication system by a user device, including receiving resource configuration information on the CSI-RS and receiving the CSI-RS on the basis of the resource configuration information on the CIS-RS, wherein the resource configuration information on the CSI-RS includes information on a cell specific-RS (CRS) related to the CSI-RS, and the user device assumes that an antenna port related to information on the CRS and an antenna port used for transmitting CSI-RS corresponding to the resource configuration information on the CSI-RS are quasi co-located.
Regarding claim 15, Yang et al. teach the WTRU without explicitly teaching mapping a DM-RS transmission to a single orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) symbol of the uplink transmission.
Park et al. for example, from a similar field of endeavor, teach the subject matter, wherein the DM-RS transmission schedule is characterized by a DM-RS transmission being mapped to a single orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) symbol of the uplink transmission (paragraph [0058] lines 1-21; Examiner’s Notes: the single carrier frequency division multiplexing (SC-FDM) symbol regards to the OFDM in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a single orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) symbol;”
in fact, scheduling/characterizing the DMRS transmission by mapping/characterizing to the single carrier frequency division multiplexing (SC-FDM) symbol of the UL transmission in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the DM-RS transmission schedule is characterized by a DM-RS transmission being mapped to a single orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) symbol of the uplink transmission” in the instant application).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the method as taught by Park et al. in the system of Yang et al. The motivation for implementing mapping a DM-RS transmission to a single orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) symbol of the uplink transmission is to further enhance the mechanism for receiving a channel state information (CSI)-reference signal (RS) from a wireless communication system by a user device, including receiving resource configuration information on the CSI-RS and receiving the CSI-RS on the basis of the resource configuration information on the CIS-RS, wherein the resource configuration information on the CSI-RS includes information on a cell specific-RS (CRS) related to the CSI-RS, and the user device assumes that an antenna port related to information on the CRS and an antenna port used for transmitting CSI-RS corresponding to the resource configuration information on the CSI-RS are quasi co-located.
Regarding claim 16, Yang et al. teach the WTRU, wherein the uplink transmission is transmitted over a slot (paragraph [0048] lines 1-11; Examiner’s Notes: the UL slot in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a slot;”
in fact, transmitting over the UL slot in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the uplink transmission is transmitted over a slot” in the instant application).
Yang et al. teach the method without explicitly teaching transmitting a DM-RS in a first OFDM symbol of the slot.
Park et al. for example, from a similar field of endeavor, teach the subject matter, the DM-RS transmission schedule indicates that a DM-RS is to be transmitted in a first OFDM symbol of the slot (paragraphs [0049] lines 1-20 & [0062] lines 1-21; Examiner’s Notes: the first OFDM symbol of the subframe/slot in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a first OFDM symbol of the slot;”
in fact, scheduling/indicating the DMRS transmission in the first OFDM symbol of the subframe/slot in the prior art teaches the limitation of “the DM-RS transmission schedule indicates that a DM-RS is to be transmitted in a first OFDM symbol of the slot” in the instant application).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the method as taught by Park et al. in the system of Yang et al.
The motivation for implementing transmitting a DM-RS in a first OFDM symbol of the slot is to further enhance the mechanism for receiving a channel state information (CSI)-reference signal (RS) from a wireless communication system by a user device, including receiving resource configuration information on the CSI-RS and receiving the CSI-RS on the basis of the resource configuration information on the CIS-RS, wherein the resource configuration information on the CSI-RS includes information on a cell specific-RS (CRS) related to the CSI-RS, and the user device assumes that an antenna port related to information on the CRS and an antenna port used for transmitting CSI-RS corresponding to the resource configuration information on the CSI-RS are quasi co-located.
23. Claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2014/0362747) in view of Yang et al. (US 2015/0078222; for the sake of citation, the examiner uses Yang2 et al. in this office action moving forward).
Regarding claim 8, Yang et al. teach the method without explicitly teaching implementing an allocation size for the uplink transmission.
Yang2 et al. for example, from a similar field of endeavor, teach the subject matter, wherein the uplink grant comprises an indication of an allocation size for the uplink transmission (paragraph [0169] lines 1-35; Examiner’s Notes: the allocation size corresponding to the transport blocks in the prior art teaches the limitation of “an allocation size for the uplink transmission;”
in fact, the UL grant indicating the allocation size corresponding to the transport blocks in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the uplink grant comprises an indication of an allocation size for the uplink transmission” in the instant application), and
the DM-RS transmission schedule for the uplink transmission is determined based the allocation size for the uplink transmission indicated by the uplink grant (paragraphs [0134] lines 1-19 & [0169] lines 1-15; Examiner’s Notes: determining/scheduling the DM-RS UL transmission based on the allocation size indicated by the UL grant in the prior art teaches the limitation of “the DM-RS transmission schedule for the uplink transmission is determined based the allocation size for the uplink transmission indicated by the uplink grant” in the instant application).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the method as taught by Yang2 et al. in the system of Yang et al.
The motivation for implementing an allocation size for the uplink transmission is to further enhance the mechanism for transmitting an uplink signal in a time division duplex (TDD)-based wireless communication system, including receiving scheduling information for data transmission in a first uplink subframe, and transmitting uplink data based on the scheduling information, wherein the uplink data transmission period includes the first uplink subframe, and further includes, if the second subframe immediately before the first uplink subframe is a subframe including a downlink period, a guard period and an uplink period, and if a predetermined condition is satisfied, an uplink period of a second subframe.
Regarding claim 9, Yang et al. teach the method without explicitly teaching implementing a value of a precoding information field.
Yang2 et al. for example, from a similar field of endeavor, teach the subject matter, wherein the DM-RS transmission schedule for the uplink transmission is determined based on a value of a precoding information field included in the uplink grant and a number of transmission layers associated with the uplink transmission (paragraphs [0125] lines 1-22 & [0131] lines 1-36; Examiner’s Notes: the value/filed indicating the precoding matrix index (PMI) in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a value of a precoding information field;”
in fact, determining/scheduling the DM-RS UL transmission based on the value/filed indicating the precoding matrix index (PMI) in the UL grant and the number of layers associated with the UL transmission in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the DM-RS transmission schedule for the uplink transmission is determined based on a value of a precoding information field included in the uplink grant and a number of transmission layers associated with the uplink transmission” in the instant application).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the method as taught by Yang2 et al. in the system of Yang et al.
The motivation for implementing a value of a precoding information field is to further enhance the mechanism for transmitting an uplink signal in a time division duplex (TDD)-based wireless communication system, including receiving scheduling information for data transmission in a first uplink subframe, and transmitting uplink data based on the scheduling information, wherein the uplink data transmission period includes the first uplink subframe, and further includes, if the second subframe immediately before the first uplink subframe is a subframe including a downlink period, a guard period and an uplink period, and if a predetermined condition is satisfied, an uplink period of a second subframe.
Regarding claim 18, Yang et al. teach the WTRU without explicitly teaching implementing an allocation size for the uplink transmission.
Yang2 et al. for example, from a similar field of endeavor, teach the subject matter, wherein the uplink grant comprises an indication of an allocation size for the uplink transmission (paragraph [0169] lines 1-35; Examiner’s Notes: the allocation size corresponding to the transport blocks in the prior art teaches the limitation of “an allocation size for the uplink transmission;”
in fact, the UL grant indicating the allocation size corresponding to the transport blocks in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the uplink grant comprises an indication of an allocation size for the uplink transmission” in the instant application), and
the DM-RS transmission schedule for the uplink transmission is determined based the allocation size for the uplink transmission indicated by the uplink grant (paragraphs [0134] lines 1-19 & [0169] lines 1-15; Examiner’s Notes: determining/scheduling the DM-RS UL transmission based on the allocation size indicated by the UL grant in the prior art teaches the limitation of “the DM-RS transmission schedule for the uplink transmission is determined based the allocation size for the uplink transmission indicated by the uplink grant” in the instant application).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the method as taught by Yang2 et al. in the system of Yang et al. The motivation for implementing an allocation size for the uplink transmission is to further enhance the mechanism for transmitting an uplink signal in a time division duplex (TDD)-based wireless communication system, including receiving scheduling information for data transmission in a first uplink subframe, and transmitting uplink data based on the scheduling information, wherein the uplink data transmission period includes the first uplink subframe, and further includes, if the second subframe immediately before the first uplink subframe is a subframe including a downlink period, a guard period and an uplink period, and if a predetermined condition is satisfied, an uplink period of a second subframe.
Regarding claim 19, Yang et al. teach the WTRU without explicitly teaching implementing a value of a precoding information field.
Yang2 et al. for example, from a similar field of endeavor, teach the subject matter, wherein the DM-RS transmission schedule for the uplink transmission is determined based on a value of a precoding information field included in the uplink grant and a number of transmission layers associated with the uplink transmission (paragraphs [0125] lines 1-22 & [0131] lines 1-36; Examiner’s Notes: the value/filed indicating the precoding matrix index (PMI) in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a value of a precoding information field;”
in fact, determining/scheduling the DM-RS UL transmission based on the value/filed indicating the precoding matrix index (PMI) in the UL grant and the number of layers associated with the UL transmission in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the DM-RS transmission schedule for the uplink transmission is determined based on a value of a precoding information field included in the uplink grant and a number of transmission layers associated with the uplink transmission” in the instant application).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the method as taught by Yang2 et al. in the system of Yang et al.
The motivation for implementing a value of a precoding information field is to further enhance the mechanism for transmitting an uplink signal in a time division duplex (TDD)-based wireless communication system, including receiving scheduling information for data transmission in a first uplink subframe, and transmitting uplink data based on the scheduling information, wherein the uplink data transmission period includes the first uplink subframe, and further includes, if the second subframe immediately before the first uplink subframe is a subframe including a downlink period, a guard period and an uplink period, and if a predetermined condition is satisfied, an uplink period of a second subframe.
Conclusion
24. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Etemad et al. (US 9,572,063) is cited to show the radio resource control (RRC) signaling for configuring the user equipment to obtain and report channel state information for the downlink channels so that a target user equipment experiences enhanced signal reception and reduced interference;
Lo (US 2018/0020441) is cited to show the collaborative transmission in a wireless communication system, wherein the control information indicates time-frequency resources allocated or assigned for data transmission by the transmitter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEI ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)270-5672. The examiner can normally be reached from 8:00AM to 5:00PM Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor JAE Y. LEE can be reached on 571-270-3936. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WEI ZHAO/ Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2479
Prosecution Insights