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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(c), the Applicant's submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. 609 C(2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement has been received, entered into the record, and considered. See attached form PTO-1449.
Claims 12-13 are canceled.
Claims 1-11 and 14-22 are pending for examination.
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.
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 as “time domain units” in claim 3, 9 and 17.
Applicant is required to review all the claims for the deficiencies noted, supra and correct the claims.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 limitations 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 limitations recites 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
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.
Claim limitation “time domain units” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant’s “time domain units” could be a signal, Para [0107], [0109], or [0119] for example. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-11 and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without “significantly more”.
Claims 1-11 and 14-22 are directed to Abstract Idea such as an idea standing alone such as an instantiated concept, pan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper for “determining a transmission resource configured to receive a third temporary reference signal (RS) according to a resource conflict result, wherein the resource conflict result comprises a result that a conflict or no conflict occurs between the transmission resource determined based on a first temporary RS burst and an unavailable resource”.
The apparatus and the method Claim 1, 7, and 14 recites limitation, “determining a transmission resource configured to receive a third temporary reference signal (RS) according to a resource conflict result, wherein the resource conflict result comprises a result that a conflict or no conflict occurs between the transmission resource determined based on a first temporary RS burst and an unavailable resource”. Since the claim is directed to a process and a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The claim recites, “determining a transmission resource configured to receive a third temporary reference signal (RS) according to a resource conflict result, wherein the resource conflict result comprises a result” recited in the claim is no more than an abstract idea i.e., mental process of determining a transmission resource” where claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, etc., (See specifically MPEP 2106.05 (f) Sec 1. (Step 2A: Prong One Abstract Idea=Yes).
The claim is then analyzed if it requires an additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – i.e., limitation that are indicative of integration into a practical application: improving to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. In the current claims, there is no additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A: Prong Two Abstract Idea=Yes).
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine if there are additional limitation recited in the claim such that the claim amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim requires the additional limitation of a computer with the central processing unit, memory, a printer, an input and output terminal and a program. These generic computer components are claimed to perform the basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data through the program that enables. In the current scenario, there are no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B: No). Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Further, dependent claims do not add any positive limitation or step that recite within the scope of the claim and does not carry patentable weight they are also rejected for the same reasons as independent claims.
Accordingly, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes”/” Mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as recited in Claims 1-11 and 14-22.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6-7, 11, 14-15, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Siqi Liu et al., (US Patent No. 12395266 B2 and Liu hereinafter).
Regarding Claims 1, 7 and 14, Lui teaches a method for transmitting a temporary reference signal, performed by a terminal, and comprising: determining a transmission resource configured to receive (i.e., a reference signal sequence by using assistance information, where the assistance information includes at least part of at least one of the following information, or a value obtained by mapping the at least part, or a range of at least one of the following information: identifier information; timing information; payload information of a signal corresponding to the sequence; payload information of a signal associated with the sequence; a scheduling mode, including, for example, mode 1 and mode 2, where mode 2 may include at least one of mode 2a, mode 2b, mode 2c, and mode 2d; or a transmission mode, for example, unicast, multicast, or broadcast) (Col 5, lines 22-38) a third temporary reference signal (RS) (i.e., the reference signal may be a Demodulation Reference Signal (DMRS), a channel state information reference signal (CSI reference signal, hereafter referred to as “CSI-RS”), a Sounding reference signal (SRS), a phase noise tracking reference signal (PTRS), or a timing reference signal (TRS). In the following embodiments, the DMRS is used as an example for description. When other RSs are generated based on a same type of sequence as the DMRS, the corresponding embodiments can also apply. Descriptions regarding those reference signals) (Col 11, lines 26-36) and (i.e., signal associated with the reference signal sequence includes: a control signal demodulated using the reference signal sequence, where for example, the reference signal is a PSCCH DMRS, and the signal associated with the reference signal sequence is corresponding SCI, and for another example, the reference signal is a PSBCH DMRS, and the signal associated with the reference signal sequence is a signal on a PSBCH; or a feedback signal demodulated using the reference signal sequence, where for example, the reference signal is a PSFCH DMRS, and the signal associated with the reference signal sequence is SCI; or a data signal demodulated using the reference signal sequence, where for example, the reference signal is a PSSCH DMRS, and the signal associated with the reference signal sequence is a data signal on a PSSCH; or a data signal scheduled by a control signal demodulated using the reference signal sequence, where for example, the reference signal is a PSCCH DMRS, and the signal associated with the reference signal sequence is a data signal on a PSSCH scheduled by SCI; or a data signal corresponding to a feedback signal demodulated using the reference signal sequence, where for example, the reference signal is a PSFCH DMRS, and the signal associated with the reference signal sequence is a PSSCH corresponding to SFCI feedback ) (Col 11, lines 26-67) according to a resource conflict result, wherein the resource conflict result comprises a result that a conflict (i.e., all transmitting terminals use a same scrambling code sequence. Due to high terminal density on NR sidelinks, a probability of SA resource conflicts between different transmitting terminals increases. Once SA resource conflicts occur) (Col 2, lines 44-52) or no conflict occurs between the transmission resource determined based on a first temporary RS burst and an unavailable resource.
Regarding Claim 6, 11 and 20, Lui teaches an uplink transmission,(i.e. may be configured to: receive and send signals in an information receiving/sending process or a call process; and specifically, send the downlink data received from a base station to the processor 610 for processing, and send uplink data to the base station) (Col 29, lines 1-40).
Regarding Claim 15 and 21-22, Lui teaches non-transitory computer storage medium and memory (Col 38, lines 5-26).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 8-10, and 16-19 would be allowable if rewritten and/or amending to remedy the 101 and 112 rejections presented in this office action, supra.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu et al., (US Patent No. 12395266 B2), “Sequence Generation Method, Signal Receiving Method, Apparatus, And Terminal” (August 19, 2025). Liu discloses generating a scrambling code sequence or a reference signal sequence by using assistance information, where the assistance information includes at least part of at least one of the following information, or a value obtained by mapping the at least part, or a range of at least one of the following information: identifier information; timing information; payload information of a signal corresponding to the sequence; payload information of a signal associated with the sequence; a scheduling mode; or a transmission mode.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANE D MIZRAHI whose telephone number is 571- 272-4079. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-3:30 PM (7:30 - 4:30 p.m.).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison T. Slater can be reached on (571) 270-0375. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are (703) 872-9306 for regular communications and for After Final communication.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
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.qov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
/DIANE D MIZRAHI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Diane.Mizrahi@USPTO.gov