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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a first receiving module and a second receiving module in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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, 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.
8. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
9. 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.
10. Claims 1, 14, 17-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai et al. (US 2018/0205589 A1), hereinafter Bai, in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0075453 A1; “IDS- EP 3570473 A2”), hereinafter referred to as Lee.
Regarding claim 1, Bai discloses: (1) UE 115-a may transmit a request 215 to base station 105-a to ask that the reference signal 205 be sent to UE 115-a. Request 215 may include a number of proposed or recommended parameters for the transmission of reference signal 205 by base station 105-a. The request may include a proposed frequency domain pattern, a time domain pattern, one or more port numbers, a transmission time, a feedback scheme for the frequency offset estimate, or a combination of these proposed parameter. Base station 105-a may, in response to request 215, send signaling to UE 115-a that request 215 is approved (e.g., including the proposed parameters) and proceed to transmit reference signal 205 based on the parameters, see 0075, 0111 (equivalent to receiving reference signal parameters, wherein the reference signal parameters at least comprise the number P of ports of a reference signal; receiving the reference signal according to the reference signal parameters); (2) phase tracking reference signal (PTRS) associated with MCS, see 0067.
Bai, however, fails to teach “wherein the number of ports of the reference signal is determined according to the modulation and coding scheme”.
Lee from the same field of wireless communication similar to that of Bai teaches: (1) the BS transmits a phase tracking reference signal (PTRS) via a layer (or DMRS port) with the highest quality to improve UE’s estimation performance and a MCS is defined per codeword (CW), the BS/UE may know which CW has the best quality. That is, based on the CW features, it is possible to reduce signaling overhead required for indicating the DMRS antenna port (or precoding) with the best channel quality, see 0042; (2) in the new radio (NR) system, up to two CWs are allowed, and the maximum number of layers in each CW may be set to 4. The two CWs may belong to one DMRS (antenna) port group. Alternatively, one CW may have two DMRS antenna port groups, see 0043-0045, 0052, 0068, 0072. Thus, Lee teaches number of ports, i.e., P=2 or 4 according to CW & DMRS antenna port group of the reference signal is determined according to the MCS.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the number of ports of the reference signal determined according to the MCS as taught by Lee into the system of Bai. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve receiving-side operation by providing information on signal transmission for phase noise cancellation in a wireless communication system.
Regarding claim 14, please see the rejection of claim 1. The rejection of claim 1 is for a method for transmitting a reference signal, applied to a terminal, has been described above, and it should be noted that a method for transmitting a reference signal, applied to a base station can be performed in a similar manner.
Regarding claim 17, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected under Bai-Lee for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1. The wireless device 900-fig.9 of Bai should include a non-transitory readable-storage medium, wherein the storage medium stores a computer program, and the computer program is configured to cause, when executed by a processor, the processor to perform the claimed steps.
Regarding claim 18, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected under Bai-Lee for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1. The wireless device 900-fig.9 of Bai includes a memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores a computer program, and the processor is configured to execute the computer program so as to perform the claimed steps.
Regarding claim 20, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 14. Therefore, it is rejected under Bai-Lee for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 14. The base station 105-c-fig.5 of Bai should include a non-transitory readable-storage medium, wherein the storage medium stores a computer program, and the computer program is configured to cause, when executed by a processor, the processor to perform the claimed steps.
Regarding claim 21, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 14. Therefore, it is rejected under Bai-Lee for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 14. The base station 105-c-fig.5 of Bai include a memory and a processor (not shown), wherein the memory stores a computer program, and the processor is configured to execute the computer program so as to perform the claimed steps.
11. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai et al. (US 2018/0205589 A1), hereinafter Bai, in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0075453 A1; “IDS- EP 3570473 A2”), hereinafter referred to as Lee, in view of Lee, and further in view of Li (US 2017/0064673 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Bai discloses: (1) UE 115-a may transmit a request 215 to base station 105-a to ask that the reference signal 205 be sent to UE 115-a. Request 215 may include a number of proposed or recommended parameters for the transmission of reference signal 205 by base station 105-a. The request may include a proposed frequency domain pattern, a time domain pattern, one or more port numbers, a transmission time, a feedback scheme for the frequency offset estimate, or a combination of these proposed parameter. Base station 105-a may, in response to request 215, send signaling to UE 115-a that request 215 is approved (e.g., including the proposed parameters) and proceed to transmit reference signal 205 based on the parameters, see 0075, 0111 (equivalent to receiving reference signal parameters, wherein the reference signal parameters at least comprise the number P of ports of a reference signal; receiving the reference signal according to the reference signal parameters); (2) phase tracking reference signal (PTRS) associated with MCS, see 0067.
Bai, however, fails to teach the number of ports of the reference signal is determined according to the modulation and coding scheme.
Lee, in the same field of wireless communication as that of Bai, discloses: (1) the BS transmits a phase tracking reference signal (PTRS) via a layer (or DMRS port) with the highest quality to improve UE’s estimation performance and a MCS is defined per codeword (CW), the BS/UE may know which CW has the best quality. That is, based on the CW features, it is possible to reduce signaling overhead required for indicating the DMRS antenna port (or precoding) with the best channel quality, see 0042; (2) in the new radio (NR) system, up to two CWs are allowed, and the maximum number of layers in each CW may be set to 4. The two CWs may belong to one DMRS (antenna) port group. Alternatively, one CW may have two DMRS antenna port groups, see 0043-0045, 0052, 0068, 0072. Thus, Lee teaches number of ports, i.e., P=2 or 4 according to CW & DMRS antenna port group, of the reference signal is determined according to the MCS.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the number of ports of the reference signal determined according to the MCS as taught by Lee into the system of Bai. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve receiving-side operation by providing information on signal transmission for phase noise cancellation in a wireless communication system.
Bai and Lee, however, fail to teach first receiving module and second receiving module.
Li, in the same field of endeavor as that of Bai and Lee, teaches a first receiving module 21-fig.2, see 0210, and a second receiving module 22-fig.2, see 0211.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ first receiving module and second receiving module as taught by Li into the combined system of Bai and Lee. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve greatly the system throughput and to enhance the system spectrum utilization efficiency with respect to signal transmission.
Allowable subject matter
12. Claim 19 is allowed.
13. Claims 2-13 are rejected based on their dependency, but would be allowable if rewritten or amended to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
14. Claim 15 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Park et al. (US 2018/0110057 A1); Ma et al. (US 2022/0038933)
are cited, and considered pertinent to the instant specification.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUC C HO whose telephone number is (571)272-3147. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Gary Mui can be reached on 571-270-1420 (Gary.mui@uspto.gov). 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/DUC C HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465