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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Matsumura in view of Hasegawa does not teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1. Specifically, Applicant contends that Hasegawa does not teach the limitation “obtaining an indication…wherein the indication includes a format of a DCI used to schedule a channel having the DMRS”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Hasegawa teaches the use of two different DCI tables (Fig. 11 and 14) based on a number of OFDM symbols used for DMRS transmission, wherein the number of symbols is indicated by higher layer signaling, i.e., corresponding DCI table is used on the basis of an instruction of the higher layer [Hasegawa ¶ 0072]. This is analogous to obtaining an indication (higher layer signaling) of a DMRS format to schedule a channel having DMRS. Furthermore, Applicant’s specification at most discloses an implicit indication of a DCI format (i.e. DCI tables) to be used to schedule DMRS (Applicant’s Spec ¶¶ 0083-0084: if the parameter dmrs-ExtendedNrOfPorts-r18 is configured, the UE assumes that DMRS with an extended number of DMRS ports, wherein the UE may associate bits in DCI field related to DMRS port mapping in, e.g., DCI Format 0_1 to a new set of tables instead of those currently specified). Here, Applicant is configuring DCI tables through RRC signaling in a similar manner to Hasegawa implicitly indicating a DCI table through a number of symbols indicated in RRC signaling. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, 20-25, and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura et al. (US 2022/0278880 A1; “Matsumura”) in view of Hasegawa et al. (US 2020/0252254 A1; “Hasegawa”).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumura teaches a method performed by a wireless device, the method comprising:
being indicated that a demodulation reference signal (DMRS) is based on frequency domain coding using a frequency domain orthogonal cover code (FD-OCC) of length greater than two [Matsumura ¶ 0012: a control section that assumes that a frequency domain orthogonal cover code (FD-OCC) having a sequence length of a number larger than two is applied to a demodulation reference signal mapped to a pair of resource elements the number of which is greater than two and that are being different in frequency; see also ¶¶ 0117-0118: FD-OCC according to the first embodiment may be applied to M (M>2) RE pairs that are adjacent in the frequency direction in a given CDM group, wherein the FD-OCC having a sequence length of M may be used, wherein the number of DMRS ports can be increased to M/2 times as large as that of Rel-15 NR, e.g., M may be 4, 8, 16, 32, or the like]; and
transmitting or receiving a number of DMRS of the channel based on the frequency domain coding [Matsumura ¶ 0012: a transmitting/receiving section that performs transmission processing or reception processing of the demodulation reference signal, based on the FD-OCC; see also ¶ 0293: transmitting/receiving section 220 may perform transmission processing or reception processing of the demodulation reference signal, based on the FD-OCC].
However, Matsumura does not explicitly disclose obtaining an indication, wherein the indication includes a format of a DCI used to schedule a channel having the DMRS.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Hasegawa teaches obtaining an indication, wherein the indication includes a format of a DCI used to schedule a channel having the DMRS [Hasegawa ¶ 0072: when 2 OFDM symbols and 4-bit OCC are used the terminals are notified of the number of DMRS symbols in the RRC (step ST1), and then the terminals are notified of a row number based on a 1 DMRS symbol or 2 DMRS symbols in the DCI (step ST2) (here, the DCI of step 2 is analogous to a received indication including a DCI format to schedule DMRS)].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of utilizing FD-OCC of length greater than 2 to transmit DMRS as taught by Matsumura, with the method of indicating a DCI format for scheduling DMRS with an associated OCC as taught by Hasegawa. The motivation to combine these references would be to reduce control overhead for reference signaling in a wireless communication system [Hasegawa ¶ 0008].
Regarding claim 2, Matsumura in view of Hasegawa teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the FD-OCC is of length 4, 6, or 8 the FD-OCC having a sequence length of M may be used, wherein the number of DMRS ports can be increased to M/2 times as large as that of Rel-15 NR, e.g., M may be 4, 8, 16, 32, or the like; Examiner’s Note: the limitations are written in the alternative (e.g., use of the word “or”), therefore, it is only necessary that one of the alternative limitations be taught by the applied references].
Regarding claim 3, Matsumura in view of Hasegawa teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the FD-OCC comprises a real-valued code [Matsumura ¶ 0131, Figs. 5B & 6B: orthogonal code of FIG. 5B is expressed in another manner, e.g., natural exponential function exp(z) (i.e. real-value code)].
Regarding claim 4, Matsumura in view of Hasegawa teaches the method of claim 1,wherein a DMRS sequence length is an integer multiple of the length of the FD-OCC [Matsumura ¶ 0110: the TD-OCC/FD-OCC of the DMRS according to Rel. 15 NR will be described. The DMRS mapped to the resource element (RE) may correspond to a sequence obtained by multiplying the TD-OCC on a DMRS sequence by a parameter (here, as DMRS must be mapped to discrete resources, the parameter would implicitly be an interfere value)].
Regarding claim 6, Matsumura in view of Hasegawa teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the DMRS is one DMRS of a plurality of DMRS and each DMRS of the plurality of DMRS is associated with a different cyclic shift [Matsumura ¶ 0092: a case of DMRS configuration type 1 and the double symbol DMRS, the Comb, the CS, and the TD-OCC may be used for orthogonalization. For example, up to eight APs may be supported by using two types of Combs, two types of CSs, and TD-OCCs ({1, 1} and {1, −1}) (here, different DMRS associated with different AP are subject to different comb/FD-OCC, i.e., cyclic shift)].
Regarding claim 7, Matsumura in view of Hasegawa teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the DMRS is one DMRS of a plurality of DMRS and each DMRS of the plurality of DMRS is associated with a FD-OCC and a length of each of the FD-OCC may vary among DMRS [Matsumura ¶ 0122, Fig. 5A: different OCC is applied to Rel-15 DMRS and later than Rel 15 DMRS, wherein Fig. 5A shows different length OCC, e.g., DMRS type 1 for Rel-15 contrasted with DMRS type 1 for later Rel].
Regarding claim 8, Matsumura teaches a wireless device comprising processing circuitry operable to:
wherein a demodulation reference signal (DMRS) is based on frequency domain coding using a frequency domain orthogonal cover code (FD-OCC) of length greater than two or a number of cyclic shifts greater than two [Matsumura ¶ 0012: a control section that assumes that a frequency domain orthogonal cover code (FD-OCC) having a sequence length of a number larger than two is applied to a demodulation reference signal mapped to a pair of resource elements the number of which is greater than two and that are being different in frequency; see also ¶¶ 0117-0118: FD-OCC according to the first embodiment may be applied to M (M>2) RE pairs that are adjacent in the frequency direction in a given CDM group, wherein the FD-OCC having a sequence length of M may be used, wherein the number of DMRS ports can be increased to M/2 times as large as that of Rel-15 NR, e.g., M may be 4, 8, 16, 32, or the like]; and
transmit or receive a number of DMRS of the channel based on the frequency domain coding [Matsumura ¶ 0012: a transmitting/receiving section that performs transmission processing or reception processing of the demodulation reference signal, based on the FD-OCC; see also ¶ 0293: transmitting/receiving section 220 may perform transmission processing or reception processing of the demodulation reference signal, based on the FD-OCC].
However, Matsumura does not explicitly disclose obtaining an indication, wherein the indication includes a format of a DCI used to schedule a channel having the DMRS.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Hasegawa teaches obtaining an indication, wherein the indication includes a format of a DCI used to schedule a channel having the DMRS [Hasegawa ¶ 0072: when 2 OFDM symbols and 4-bit OCC are used the terminals are notified of the number of DMRS symbols in the RRC (step ST1), and then the terminals are notified of a row number based on a 1 DMRS symbol or 2 DMRS symbols in the DCI (step ST2) (here, the DCI of step 2 is analogous to a received indication including a DCI format to schedule DMRS)].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of utilizing FD-OCC of length greater than 2 to transmit DMRS as taught by Matsumura, with the method of indicating a DCI format for scheduling DMRS with an associated OCC as taught by Hasegawa. The motivation to combine these references would be to reduce control overhead for reference signaling in a wireless communication system [Hasegawa ¶ 0008].
Regarding claim 9, Matsumura in view of Hasegawa teaches the wireless device of claim 8, wherein the FD-OCC is of length 4, 6, or 8 [Matsumura ¶ 0118: the FD-OCC having a sequence length of M may be used, wherein the number of DMRS ports can be increased to M/2 times as large as that of Rel-15 NR, e.g., M may be 4, 8, 16, 32, or the like; Examiner’s Note: the limitations are written in the alternative (e.g., use of the word “or”), therefore, it is only necessary that one of the alternative limitations be taught by the applied references].
Regarding claim 10, Matsumura in view of Hasegawa teaches the wireless device of claim 8, wherein the FD-OCC comprises a real-valued code or a complex-valued code [Matsumura ¶ 0131, Figs. 5B & 6B: orthogonal code of FIG. 5B is expressed in another manner, e.g., natural exponential function exp(z) (i.e. real-value code); Examiner’s Note: the limitations are written in the alternative (e.g., use of the word “or”), therefore, it is only necessary that one of the alternative limitations be taught by the applied references].
Regarding claim 11, Matsumura in view of Hasegawa teaches the wireless device of claim 8, wherein a DMRS sequence length is an integer multiple of the length of the FD-OCC [Matsumura ¶ 0110: the TD-OCC/FD-OCC of the DMRS according to Rel. 15 NR will be described. The DMRS mapped to the resource element (RE) may correspond to a sequence obtained by multiplying the TD-OCC on a DMRS sequence by a parameter (here, as DMRS must be mapped to discrete resources, the parameter would implicitly be an integer value)].
Regarding claim 13, Matsumura in view of Hasegawa teaches the wireless device of claim 8, wherein the DMRS is one DMRS of a plurality of DMRS and each DMRS of the plurality of DMRS is associated with a different cyclic shift [Matsumura ¶ 0092: a case of DMRS configuration type 1 and the double symbol DMRS, the Comb, the CS, and the TD-OCC may be used for orthogonalization. For example, up to eight APs may be supported by using two types of Combs, two types of CSs, and TD-OCCs ({1, 1} and {1, −1}) (here, different DMRS associated with different AP are subject to different comb/FD-OCC, i.e., cyclic shift)].
Regarding claim 14, Matsumura in view of Hasegawa teaches the wireless device of claim 8, wherein the DMRS is one DMRS of a plurality of DMRS and each DMRS of the plurality of DMRS is associated with a FD-OCC and a length of each of the FD-OCC may vary among DMRS [Matsumura ¶ 0122, Fig. 5A: different OCC is applied to Rel-15 DMRS and later than Rel 15 DMRS, wherein Fig. 5A shows different length OCC, e.g., DMRS type 1 for Rel-15 contrasted with DMRS type 1 for later Rel].
Regarding claim 15, Matsumura teaches a method performed by a target network node, the method comprising:
a wireless device using a demodulation reference signal (DMRS) is based on frequency domain coding using a frequency domain orthogonal cover code (FD-OCC) of length greater than two [Matsumura ¶ 0012: a control section that assumes that a frequency domain orthogonal cover code (FD-OCC) having a sequence length of a number larger than two is applied to a demodulation reference signal mapped to a pair of resource elements the number of which is greater than two and that are being different in frequency; see also ¶¶ 0117-0118: FD-OCC according to the first embodiment may be applied to M (M>2) RE pairs that are adjacent in the frequency direction in a given CDM group, wherein the FD-OCC having a sequence length of M may be used, wherein the number of DMRS ports can be increased to M/2 times as large as that of Rel-15 NR, e.g., M may be 4, 8, 16, 32, or the like]; and
transmitting or receiving a number of DMRS of the channel based on the frequency domain coding [Matsumura ¶ 0012: a transmitting/receiving section that performs transmission processing or reception processing of the demodulation reference signal, based on the FD-OCC; see also ¶ 0293: transmitting/receiving section 220 may perform transmission processing or reception processing of the demodulation reference signal, based on the FD-OCC].
However, Matsumura does not explicitly disclose transmitting an indication, wherein the indication includes a format of a DCI used to schedule a channel having the DMRS.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Hasegawa teaches transmitting an indication, wherein the indication includes a format of a DCI used to schedule a channel having the DMRS [Hasegawa ¶ 0072: when 2 OFDM symbols and 4-bit OCC are used the terminals are notified of the number of DMRS symbols in the RRC (step ST1), and then the terminals are notified of a row number based on a 1 DMRS symbol or 2 DMRS symbols in the DCI (step ST2) (here, the DCI of step 2 is analogous to a transmitted indication including a DCI format to schedule DMRS)].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of utilizing FD-OCC of length greater than 2 to transmit DMRS as taught by Matsumura, with the method of indicating a DCI format for scheduling DMRS with an associated OCC as taught by Hasegawa. The motivation to combine these references would be to reduce control overhead for reference signaling in a wireless communication system [Hasegawa ¶ 0008].
Regarding claim 16, Matsumura in view of Hasegawa teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the FD-OCC is of length 4, 6, or 8 [Matsumura ¶ 0118: the FD-OCC having a sequence length of M may be used, wherein the number of DMRS ports can be increased to M/2 times as large as that of Rel-15 NR, e.g., M may be 4, 8, 16, 32, or the like; Examiner’s Note: the limitations are written in the alternative (e.g., use of the word “or”), therefore, it is only necessary that one of the alternative limitations be taught by the applied references].
Regarding claim 17, Matsumura in view of Hasegawa teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the FD-OCC comprises a real-valued code or a complex-valued code [Matsumura ¶ 0131, Figs. 5B & 6B: orthogonal code of FIG. 5B is expressed in another manner, e.g., natural exponential function exp(z) (i.e. real-value code); Examiner’s Note: the limitations are written in the alternative (e.g., use of the word “or”), therefore, it is only necessary that one of the alternative limitations be taught by the applied references].
Regarding claim 18, Matsumura in view of Hasegawa teaches the method of claim 15, wherein a DMRS sequence length is an integer multiple of the length of the FD-OCC [Matsumura ¶ 0110: the TD-OCC/FD-OCC of the DMRS according to Rel. 15 NR will be described. The DMRS mapped to the resource element (RE) may correspond to a sequence obtained by multiplying the TD-OCC on a DMRS sequence by a parameter (here, as DMRS must be mapped to discrete resources, the parameter would implicitly be an integer value)].
Regarding claim 20, Matsumura in view of Hasegawa teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the DMRS is one DMRS of a plurality of DMRS and each DMRS of the plurality of DMRS is associated with a different cyclic shift [Matsumura ¶ 0092: a case of DMRS configuration type 1 and the double symbol DMRS, the Comb, the CS, and the TD-OCC may be used for orthogonalization. For example, up to eight APs may be supported by using two types of Combs, two types of CSs, and TD-OCCs ({1, 1} and {1, −1}) (here, different DMRS associated with different AP are subject to different comb/FD-OCC, i.e., cyclic shift)].
Regarding claim 21, Matsumura in view of Hasegawa teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the DMRS is one DMRS of a plurality of DMRS and each DMRS of the plurality of DMRS is associated with a FD-OCC and a length of each of the FD-OCC may vary among DMRS [Matsumura ¶ 0122, Fig. 5A: different OCC is applied to Rel-15 DMRS and later than Rel 15 DMRS, wherein Fig. 5A shows different length OCC, e.g., DMRS type 1 for Rel-15 contrasted with DMRS type 1 for later Rel].
Regarding claim 22, Matsumura teaches a network node comprising processing circuitry operable to:
a wireless device determining a demodulation reference signal (DMRS) is based on frequency domain coding using a frequency domain orthogonal cover code (FD-OCC) of length greater than two or a number of cyclic shifts greater than two [Matsumura ¶ 0012: a control section that assumes that a frequency domain orthogonal cover code (FD-OCC) having a sequence length of a number larger than two is applied to a demodulation reference signal mapped to a pair of resource elements the number of which is greater than two and that are being different in frequency; see also ¶¶ 0117-0118: FD-OCC according to the first embodiment may be applied to M (M>2) RE pairs that are adjacent in the frequency direction in a given CDM group, wherein the FD-OCC having a sequence length of M may be used, wherein the number of DMRS ports can be increased to M/2 times as large as that of Rel-15 NR, e.g., M may be 4, 8, 16, 32, or the like]; and
transmit or receive a number of DMRS of the channel based on the frequency domain coding [Matsumura ¶ 0012: a transmitting/receiving section that performs transmission processing or reception processing of the demodulation reference signal, based on the FD-OCC; see also ¶ 0293: transmitting/receiving section 220 may perform transmission processing or reception processing of the demodulation reference signal, based on the FD-OCC].
However, Matsumura does not explicitly disclose transmitting an indication, wherein the indication includes a format of a DCI used to schedule a channel having the DMRS.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Hasegawa teaches transmitting an indication, wherein the indication includes a format of a DCI used to schedule a channel having the DMRS [Hasegawa ¶ 0072: when 2 OFDM symbols and 4-bit OCC are used the terminals are notified of the number of DMRS symbols in the RRC (step ST1), and then the terminals are notified of a row number based on a 1 DMRS symbol or 2 DMRS symbols in the DCI (step ST2) (here, the DCI of step 2 is analogous to a transmitted indication including a DCI format to schedule DMRS)].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of utilizing FD-OCC of length greater than 2 to transmit DMRS as taught by Matsumura, with the method of indicating a DCI format for scheduling DMRS with an associated OCC as taught by Hasegawa. The motivation to combine these references would be to reduce control overhead for reference signaling in a wireless communication system [Hasegawa ¶ 0008].
Regarding claim 23, Matsumura in view of Hasegawa teaches the network node of claim 22, wherein the FD-OCC is of length 4, 6, or 8 [Matsumura ¶ 0118: the FD-OCC having a sequence length of M may be used, wherein the number of DMRS ports can be increased to M/2 times as large as that of Rel-15 NR, e.g., M may be 4, 8, 16, 32, or the like; Examiner’s Note: the limitations are written in the alternative (e.g., use of the word “or”), therefore, it is only necessary that one of the alternative limitations be taught by the applied references].
Regarding claim 24, Matsumura in view of Hasegawa teaches the network node of claim 22, wherein the FD-OCC comprises a real-valued code or a complex-valued code [Matsumura ¶ 0131, Figs. 5B & 6B: orthogonal code of FIG. 5B is expressed in another manner, e.g., natural exponential function exp(z) (i.e. real-value code); Examiner’s Note: the limitations are written in the alternative (e.g., use of the word “or”), therefore, it is only necessary that one of the alternative limitations be taught by the applied references].
Regarding claim 25, Matsumura in view of Hasegawa teaches the network node of claim 22, wherein a DMRS sequence length is an integer multiple of the length of the FD-OCC [Matsumura ¶ 0110: the TD-OCC/FD-OCC of the DMRS according to Rel. 15 NR will be described. The DMRS mapped to the resource element (RE) may correspond to a sequence obtained by multiplying the TD-OCC on a DMRS sequence by a parameter (here, as DMRS must be mapped to discrete resources, the parameter would implicitly be an integer value)].
Regarding claim 27, Matsumura in view of Hasegawa teaches the network node of claim 22, wherein the DMRS is one DMRS of a plurality of DMRS and each DMRS of the plurality of DMRS is associated with a different cyclic shift [Matsumura ¶ 0092: a case of DMRS configuration type 1 and the double symbol DMRS, the Comb, the CS, and the TD-OCC may be used for orthogonalization. For example, up to eight APs may be supported by using two types of Combs, two types of CSs, and TD-OCCs ({1, 1} and {1, −1}) (here, different DMRS associated with different AP are subject to different comb/FD-OCC, i.e., cyclic shift)].
Regarding claim 28, Matsumura in view of Hasegawa teaches the network node of claim 22, wherein the DMRS is one DMRS of a plurality of DMRS and each DMRS of the plurality of DMRS is associated with a FD-OCC and a length of each of the FD-OCC may vary among DMRS [Matsumura ¶ 0122, Fig. 5A: different OCC is applied to Rel-15 DMRS and later than Rel 15 DMRS, wherein Fig. 5A shows different length OCC, e.g., DMRS type 1 for Rel-15 contrasted with DMRS type 1 for later Rel].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRIAN P COX whose telephone number is (571)272-2728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4PM EST.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at 5712722832. 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.
/BRIAN P COX/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights