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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3, 4, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Specifically, the claims recite limitations directed to “a minimum time interval between adjacent two temporary RS bursts stipulated by a Random Access Network (RAN) 4 protocol”. A Random Access Network (RAN) 4 protocol, according to Applicant’s specification, e.g., [0065] of specification as filed, is a communication standard protocol. However, Examiner found no evidence to support a Random Access Network (RAN) 4 protocol is a communication standard protocol through search. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed would not have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention in view of the disclosure, and/or been able to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-15, 17, 19-21, 43, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding independent claim 1, the same claim limitation “two temporary RS bursts” is recited in both line 4 and line 5. It is unclear whether they are the same element, i.e., the same temporary RS bursts, or otherwise. Independent claims 11 and 43 which recite similar language regarding “two temporary RS bursts” are rejected for the same reason. Dependent claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-15, 17, 19-21, and 45 are rejected because they depend from claims 1, 11, or 43.
Regarding dependent claims 3, 4, 20, and 21, it is unclear what is meant by “a
Random Access Network (RAN) 4 protocol” for reasons discussed above. Because the meaning of the claim is unclear, the claim is rendered indefinite.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 11-13, 15, 43, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ernstrom et al. (US 2021/0051048 A1, hereinafter “Ernstrom”).
Regarding independent claim 1:
Ernstrom discloses a method for processing a temporary reference signal (RS) burst, performed by a terminal, comprising:
determining, based on a network side configuration, a transmission resource of one of two temporary RS bursts (e.g., [0104], TRS (tracking reference signal) configuration comprising TRS burst parameters and its periodicity); and
determining a time interval between two temporary RS bursts transmitted adjacently in a case that the transmission resource conflicts with a resource unavailable for transmitting any temporary RS burst (e.g., [0105], dynamic signaling to the UE to use reduced density for TRS burst in case of a UE is scheduled in resources that overlaps with the TRS burst, e.g., an increased spacing between two OFDM symbols carrying TRS symbol).
Regarding claim 2:
Ernstrom further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the time interval between two temporary RS bursts transmitted adjacently comprises at least one of:
determining, based on a predefined rule, the time interval between the two temporary RS bursts transmitted adjacently; or determining, based on an indication of a base station, the time interval between the two temporary RS bursts transmitted adjacently (e.g., [0105], dynamic signaling by DCI).
Regarding claim 5:
Ernstrom further discloses the method of claim 2, wherein determining, based on the indication of the base station, the time interval between the two temporary RS bursts transmitted adjacently comprises at least one of: determining, based on interval indication information included in a signaling of the base station, the time interval between the two temporary RS bursts transmitted adjacently, wherein the interval indication information indicates the time interval; or determining the time interval between the adjacent two temporary RS bursts based on a correspondence between a signaling of the base station and a value of the time interval (e.g., [0105], dynamic signaling indicates full density or reduced density).
Regarding claim 6:
Ernstrom further discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the signaling of the base station comprises at least one of: Downlink Control Information (DCI); or a Media Access Control (MAC) Control Element (CE) (e.g., [0105]).
Regarding independent claim 11:
Ernstrom discloses a method for processing a temporary reference signal (RS) burst, performed by a base station, comprising: determining, based on a network side configuration, a transmission resource of one of two temporary RS bursts; and determining a time interval between two temporary RS bursts transmitted adjacently in a case that the transmission resource conflicts with a resource unavailable for transmitting any temporary RS burst. (See rejections for similar limitations with respect to claim 1.)
Regarding claims 12, 13, and 15
See rejections for similar limitations with respect to claims 2, 5, and 6.
Regarding independent claim 43:
Ernstrom discloses a terminal (e.g., Fig. 6A, 300), comprising: a processor (Fig. 6A, 310), a transceiver (Fig. 6A, 320), a memory and executable programs (Fig. 6A, 330) stored on the memory and being executable by the processor, wherein when the executable programs are executed by the processor, the processor is configured to: determining, based on a network side configuration, a transmission resource of one of two temporary RS bursts transmitted adjacently, and determining a time interval between two temporary RS bursts transmitted adjacently in a case that the transmission resource conflicts with a resource unavailable for transmitting any temporary RS burst. (See rejections for similar limitations with respect to claim 1.)
Regarding independent claim 45:
Ernstrom discloses a base station (e.g., Fig. 6A, 300), comprising: a processor (Fig. 6A, 310), a transceiver (Fig. 6A, 320), a memory and executable programs (Fig. 6A, 330) stored on the memory and being executable by the processor, wherein when the executable programs are executed by the processor, the processor is configured to perform the method of claim 11. (See rejections for similar limitations with respect to claim 1.)
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.
Claims 8-10, 14, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ernstrom in view of Ma et al. (US 2022/0070823 A1, hereinafter “Ma”).
Regarding claim 8:
Ernstrom is silent regarding wherein the MAC CE carries one of: the interval indication information; or, temporary RS triggering information to implicitly indicate the time interval.
Ma teaches a MAC CE carries one of: the interval indication information; or, temporary RS triggering information to implicitly indicate the time interval (e.g., [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Ernstrom based on the teaching from Ma to include the feature wherein the MAC CE carries one of: the interval indication information; or, temporary RS triggering information to implicitly indicate the time interval, in order to enable flexible reference signal pattern configurations.
Regarding claim 9:
Ernstrom is silent regarding wherein the temporary RS triggering information is configured to determine relevant information of a temporary RS, wherein the relevant information is pre-configured by a Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling and comprises the interval indication information for indicating the time interval.
Ma teaches temporary RS triggering information is configured to determine relevant information of a temporary RS, wherein the relevant information is pre-configured by a Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling and comprises the interval indication information for indicating the time interval (e.g., [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Ernstrom based on the teaching from Ma to include the feature wherein the temporary RS triggering information is configured to determine relevant information of a temporary RS, wherein the relevant information is pre-configured by a Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling and comprises the interval indication information for indicating the time interval, in order to enable flexible reference signal pattern configurations.
Regarding claim 10:
Ernstrom teaches wherein the DCI carries the interval indication information (e.g., [0105]), but is silent regarding the interval indication information indicates a value of the time interval; wherein, the value of the time interval indicated by the interval indication information is one of: a value located in a value set configured by an RRC signaling, or a value located in a value set predefined by a protocol.
Ma teaches an interval indication information indicating a value of a time interval; wherein, the value of the time interval indicated by the interval indication information is one of: a value located in a value set configured by an RRC signaling, or a value located in a value set predefined by a protocol (e.g., [0071], indicator for selection of one of the TRS configurations, each TRS configuration includes a set of parameters for transmitting the TRS).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Ernstrom based on the teaching from Ma to include the feature the interval indication information indicates a value of the time interval; wherein, the value of the time interval indicated by the interval indication information is one of: a value located in a value set configured by an RRC signaling, or a value located in a value set predefined by a protocol, in order to enable flexible reference signal pattern configurations.
Regarding claims 14, 17, 19:
See rejections for similar limitations with respect to claims 8-10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alvin ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-1086. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6am-9am and 2pm-7pm.
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 at 571-270-1420. 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.
/BO HUI A ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights