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
2. Acknowledgment is made of the present Application is a continuation application of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/133,001, filed on December 23, 2020, which is a continuation of International Patent Application No PCT/CN2018/100000 filed on August 10, 2018.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s submission of information disclosure statement (IDS), dated on May 2, 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.
Application Status
5. Acknowledgment is made of the present application is submitted on May 2, 2024. Claims 1-18 are pending. This communication is considered fully responsive and sets forth below.
Specification
6. The title of the invention is not descriptive.
The title of this application is “Methods and Apparatuses for Information Transmission and Reception.” The examiner objects the usage of this title as it is not clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
A substitution of a new title is anticipated.
Claim Objections
7. Claims 5, 8, 9, 16, and 17 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 5, it recites, “The transmission apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the time-domain resource is used for transmission or reception of sidelink transmission; and the number of a part of symbols in the time-domain resource is the number of symbols in the time-domain resource except at least one symbol used for automatic gain control and/or at least one symbol taken as a guard period.”
The examiner objects the usage of the term “and/or” indicated in italics in the ending sentence, because the term with a slash connecting two elements which is a non-positive claim limitation or making one of the elements optional.
Optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted. See Ex parte Katz, 2011 WE 514314, at 4-5 (BPAI Jan. 27, 2011).
Same objection applies to the usage of “and/or” in claims 8, 16, and 17.
Claim 9 is objected to by virtue of dependency on claim 8.
Double Patenting
8. 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).
9. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,009,958.
Regarding claim 1, it recites, “A transmission apparatus comprising:
processor circuitry configured to
determine, according to a first parameter and a second parameter, a number of symbols occupied by a demodulation reference signal and positions where the symbols are located in time-domain resource,
the first parameter being a number of a part of symbols in the time-domain resource, the second parameter being a number parameter of the demodulation reference signal,
a transmitter configured to transmit, to a reception apparatus, data and the demodulation reference signal by at least using the time-domain resource.”
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,009,958 recites, “An apparatus for information transmission, comprising:
a processor configured to
determine a demodulation reference signal in a time-domain resource,
wherein the number of symbols contained in the time-domain resource is less than or equal to the number of symbols contained in a slot or a subframe,
wherein the number of symbols are occupied by the demodulation reference signal and positions where the symbols are located in the time-domain resource are determined by the processor circuitry according to a first parameter, a second parameters and a third parameter,
where, the first parameter is the number of a part of symbols in the time-domain resource, the second parameter is a number parameter of the demodulation reference signal, and
the third parameter denotes offset taking symbol as a unit; and
a transmitter configured to transmit data information and the determined demodulation reference signal by at least using the time-domain resource to a receiving device.”
Claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,009,958 are both apparatus claim. Here are the limitation mappings:
for the claim preamble, i.e., “A transmission apparatus,”
the preamble of claim 1 of the patent “An apparatus for information transmission” reads on it;
for the limitation “processor circuitry,”
“a processor” indicated in italics in claim 1 of the patent teaches this limitation;
for the limitation “determine, according to a first parameter and a second parameter, a number of symbols occupied by a demodulation reference signal and positions where the symbols are located in time-domain resource,”
“the number of symbols are occupied by the demodulation reference signal and positions where the symbols are located in the time-domain resource are determined by the processor circuitry according to a first parameter, a second parameters” indicated in italics in the second wherein clause in claim 1 of the patent reads on this limitation;
for the limitation “the first parameter being a number of a part of symbols in the time-domain resource, the second parameter being a number parameter of the demodulation reference signal,”
claim 1 of the patent includes the same limitation;
for the last limitation, i.e., “a transmitter configured to transmit, to a reception apparatus, data and the demodulation reference signal by at least using the time-domain resource,”
the ending limitation “a receiving device” in claim 1 of the patent teaches the limitation of “a reception apparatus;”
in fact, the last limitation “a transmitter configured to transmit data information and the determined demodulation reference signal by at least using the time-domain resource to a receiving device” in claim 1 of the patent teaches this limitation.
Based on the information presented above, claim 1 includes similar limitations, that are a part of the limitations in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,009,958. In fact, claim 1 is merely a broader version of the claim 1 of the patent by eliminating some elements, e.g., “determine a demodulation reference signal in a time-domain resource, wherein the number of symbols contained in the time-domain resource is less than or equal to the number of symbols contained in a slot or a subframe.”
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 2-16 and 18 as follows:
10. Claims 2 and 3 are both rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,009,958.
11. Claims 4-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2 and 4-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,009,958, individually.
12. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,009,958, individually.
13. Claims 10-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,009,958, individually.
14. Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,009,958.
15. Claims 14 and 15 are both rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,009,958 (Examiner’s Note: claims 14 and 15 include similar limitations as in claim 1 of the patent, though claims 14 and 15 are written from a reception apparatus perspective and claim 1 of the patent is from a transmission perspective).
16. Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,009,958 (Examiner’s Note: claim 16 includes similar limitations as in claim 4 of the patent, though claim 16 is written from a reception apparatus perspective and claim 4 of the patent is from a transmission perspective).
17. Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,009,958.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
18. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
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.
19. Claims 7, 8, and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 7, it recites, “The transmission apparatus according to claim 2, wherein for each combination of the first parameter and the second parameter, the third parameter is configured or determined independently, and the third parameter is greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to the number of symbols contained in the slot or the subframe.”
Claim 7 depends from claim 2, which depends from claim 1. Claims 1 and 2 are as follows:
“1. A transmission apparatus comprising:
processor circuitry configured to determine, according to a first parameter and a second parameter, a number of symbols occupied by a demodulation reference signal and positions where the symbols are located in time-domain resource, the first parameter being a number of a part of symbols in the time-domain resource, the second parameter being a number parameter of the demodulation reference signal,
a transmitter configured to transmit, to a reception apparatus, data and the demodulation reference signal by at least using the time-domain resource.
2. The transmission apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor circuitry configured to determine, according to the first parameter, the second parameter, and a third parameter, the number of symbols occupied by the demodulation reference signal and the positions, the third parameter denotes offset taking symbol as a unit.”
Claim 7 is rejected since there is a lack of antecedent basis for the usage of the ending term “the slot or the subframe.”
Same rejection applies to the usage of the term “the data information” in claim 8 line 4 and in claim 17 line 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
20. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
A dependent claim is statutorily required to contain a reference to a previous claim in the same application, and specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed.
21. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of a previous claim. Applicant is required to cancel the claim(s), or amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, or rewrite the claim(s) in independent form.
Regarding claim 17, it recites, “The reception apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the time domain resource includes a plurality of sidelink time-domain resources, …”
It claims the limitation of “The reception apparatus according to claim 1.” Claim 17 is in an improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter as claim 1 claims “A transmission apparatus.”
Allowable Subject Matter
22. Claims 1-16 and 18 are objected to, rejected under the nonstatutory double patenting, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and/or rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as presented above, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome these issues.
The following is the reason for examiner’s statement of allowance:
The closest prior art on record, Jiang et al. (US 11,218,269) and Jeon et al. (US 2018/0367255) are generally directed to various aspects of the signaling indication method, including acquiring, by a first communication node, joint indication information, and transmitting the joint indication information from a first communication node to a second communication node, wherein the joint indication information is used for joint indication; a wireless device receiving from a base station, a first message comprising configuration parameters indicating a timing offset and a symbol number identifying a resource of an uplink grant of a configured periodic grant of a first type and a first periodicity of the configured periodic grant, wherein the first periodicity indicates a time interval between two subsequent resources of the configured periodic grant, transport blocks are transmitted via the resource of the configured periodic grant, a second message indicating a request for transmission information associated with the configured periodic grant is received, a third message is transmitted, in response to the second message, indicating a first value based on a number of transmissions via the resource associated with the configured periodic grant, and a second value based on a number of times that the wireless device received no corresponding acknowledgement from the base station in response to the transmission.
However, in consideration of the claim limitations, the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 2, 2024, and further search, no prior art reference or a combination of prior art references disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in the independent claims including:
“the first parameter being a number of a part of symbols in the time-domain resource, the second parameter being a number parameter of the demodulation reference signal,” and “a transmitter configured to transmit, to a reception apparatus, data and the demodulation reference signal by at least using the time-domain resource,” as specified in claim 1.
Similar limitations are included in claim 18.
“a number of symbols occupied by the demodulation reference signal and positions where the symbols are located in the time-domain resource are determined according to a first parameter and a second parameter,” and “the first parameter being a number of a part of symbols in the time-domain resource, the second parameter being a number parameter of the demodulation reference signal,” as specified in claim 13.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-16 are also allowable for incorporating the features recited in the independent claim(s).
Conclusion
23. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jiang et al. (US 11,218,269) is cited to show a signaling indication method, including acquiring, by a first communication node, joint indication information, and transmitting the joint indication information from a first communication node to a second communication node, wherein the joint indication information is used for joint indication;
Jeon et al. (US 2018/0367255) is generally directed to various aspects of the wireless device receiving, from a base station, a first message comprising configuration parameters indicating a timing offset and a symbol number identifying a resource of an uplink grant of a configured periodic grant of a first type and a first periodicity of the configured periodic grant, wherein the first periodicity indicates a time interval between two subsequent resources of the configured periodic grant, transport blocks are transmitted via the resource of the configured periodic grant, a second message indicating a request for transmission information associated with the configured periodic grant is received, a third message is transmitted, in response to the second message, indicating a first value based on a number of transmissions via the resource associated with the configured periodic grant, and a second value based on a number of times that the wireless device received no corresponding acknowledgement from the base station in response to the transmission.
Park et al. (US 2015/0208392) is cited to show determining the PDSCH start symbol index when a PDSCH start symbol value included in a PDSCH resource element mapping and Quasi co-location Indicator (PQI) parameter set is determined by an upper layer;
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;
Zhang et al. (US 2019/0174466) is directed to time domain resource allocations in wireless communications systems, that include time-domain symbol determination and indication using a combination of higher layer and downlink control information signaling for physical downlink shared channel and physical uplink shared channel, time domain resource allocations for mini-slot operations, rules for postponing and dropping for multiple mini-slot transmission, and collision handling of sounding reference signals with semi-statically or semi-persistently configured uplink transmissions.
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