DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16, 33, 34, 37, and 38 are pending. Claims 17-32, 35, and 36 were cancelled via preliminary amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/28/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3/28/2024. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/28/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3/28/2024. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-16, 33, 34, 37, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claims 1 and 37, each claim recites the abstract idea of a mental process. Specifically, the claim recites receiving configuration information of a sounding reference signal (SRS) to a non-serving cell. The claim itself is recited at a high level of generality such that the decisive operations themselves could be performed within the human mind. In essence, the claim is directed to mere data gathering (or receiving data over a network). Moreover, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) reminds examiners that, “Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.” While the claim limitations may recite structural elements, those elements merely perform them in a computer network environment. Reciting elements in such a field of use do not transform the claim itself beyond an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), bullet 2. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the mental process using a generic terminal within a wireless network. Further, while the specification itself may be directed to the improvement of a technological field (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) for further guidance), the MPEP reminds examiners that the improvement must be recited within the claim. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states, “Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").” Therefore, the claim is recited at a high level of generality and does not recite specific elements tying it to a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the structure within the claims amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the mental process using a general-purpose computer and generic radio equipment. The additional structure within the claim amounts to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), bullet i, reminds examiners that, “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added))” The steps within the claim are well-understood and no inventive concept is recited, therefore the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 8, 9, and 10 further recite additional elements that fall within a mental process: receiving configuration information (claim 2), receiving a particular message, MAC CE (claim 3), and receiving various configuration information (claims 8-10). Each of these limitations does not go beyond the recitation of a mental process, as they do not preclude the determinations to be made with a human mind. Furthermore, the claims themselves do not recite a practical application, and are merely instructions to perform the claimed elements on a generic computer processor. Lastly, the claims themselves amount to coordinating DRX and power states on a terminal, which are concepts performed on a generic purpose computer using well-understood, routine, and conventional techniques. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
As per claims 11, 34, and 38, the claim recites the abstract idea of a mental process. Specifically, the claim recites transmitting configuration information of a sounding reference signal (SRS) to a non-serving cell. The claim itself is recited at a high level of generality such that the decisive operations themselves could be performed within the human mind. In essence, the claim is directed to mere data exchange (or transmitting data over a network). Moreover, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) reminds examiners that, “Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.” While the claim limitations may recite structural elements, those elements merely perform them in a computer network environment. Reciting elements in such a field of use do not transform the claim itself beyond an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), bullet 2. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the mental process using a generic terminal within a wireless network. Further, while the specification itself may be directed to the improvement of a technological field (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) for further guidance), the MPEP reminds examiners that the improvement must be recited within the claim. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states, “Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").” Therefore, the claim is recited at a high level of generality and does not recite specific elements tying it to a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the structure within the claims amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the mental process using a general-purpose computer and generic radio equipment. The additional structure within the claim amounts to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), bullet i, reminds examiners that, “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added))” The steps within the claim are well-understood and no inventive concept is recited, therefore the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 12-16 further recite additional elements that fall within a mental process: transmitting various configuration information (claims 12-16) with an intended use, but no actual inherent function. Each of these limitations does not go beyond the recitation of a mental process, as they do not preclude the determinations to be made with a human mind. Furthermore, the claims themselves do not recite a practical application, and are merely instructions to perform the claimed elements on a generic computer processor. Lastly, the claims themselves amount to coordinating DRX and power states on a terminal, which are concepts performed on a generic purpose computer using well-understood, routine, and conventional techniques. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
As per claim 33, the claim recites the abstract idea of a mental process. Specifically, the claim recites receiving configuration information of a sounding reference signal (SRS) to a non-serving cell. The claim itself is recited at a high level of generality such that the decisive operations themselves could be performed within the human mind. In essence, the claim is directed to mere data gathering (or receiving data over a network). Moreover, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) reminds examiners that, “Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.” While the claim limitations may recite structural elements, those elements merely perform them in a computer network environment. Reciting elements in such a field of use do not transform the claim itself beyond an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), bullet 2. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the mental process using a generic terminal within a wireless network. Further, while the specification itself may be directed to the improvement of a technological field (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) for further guidance), the MPEP reminds examiners that the improvement must be recited within the claim. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states, “Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").” Therefore, the claim is recited at a high level of generality and does not recite specific elements tying it to a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the structure within the claims amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the mental process using a general-purpose computer and generic radio equipment. The additional structure within the claim amounts to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), bullet i, reminds examiners that, “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added))” The steps within the claim are well-understood and no inventive concept is recited, therefore the claim is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 11-13, 33, 34, 37, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhu et al. (US PG Pub 2022/0046458).
As per claim 1, Zhu et al. teach a method for measuring an uplink beam [Zhu, ¶ 0446, This portion of the description describes configuring uplink beams which will be sent by the UE.], performed by a terminal device [Zhu, ¶s 0450, The configuration information is conveyed to the UE.] and comprising:
receiving configuration information [Zhu, ¶ 0449, “FIG. 30 illustrates an example SRS spatial relation information 3000 according to embodiments of the present disclosure”, Uplink RS channel configurations are defined and sent to the UE (see also ¶ 0450, where the UE makes an assumption of physicalCellID within the higher layer parameters).], wherein the configuration information comprises a sounding reference signal (SRS) corresponding to a non-serving cell [Zhu, ¶ 0450, “In FIG. 30, an example of including/indicating the (non-serving (or neighboring) cell) PCI/TRP ID value in SRS-SpatialRelationInfo is presented, and a snippet of the corresponding IE is given in TABLE 37 (i.e., a new field/parameter physicalCellId is included/configured in the higher layer parameter SRS-SpatialRelationInfo to indicate the non-serving (or neighboring) cell RS(s) as the reference RS(s) for configuring the spatial domain transmission filter for the transmission of the SRS(s))”, Fig. 30 shows sounding reference signal (SRS) spatial relation info as higher layer parameters. The spatial relation info pertains to a serving cell and a neighbor (or non-serving) cell. See also Table 37. Paragraph [0452] additionally note how a UE would read the higher layer parameters.].
As per claim 2, Zhu et al. teach the method according to claim 1. Zhu et al. also teach wherein the configuration information further comprises: a path loss reference signal corresponding to the non-serving cell [Zhu, ¶ 0465, “In FIG. 31, an example of including/indicating the (non-serving (or neighboring) cell) PCI/TRP ID value in PUSCH-PathlossReferenceRS is presented, and a snippet of the corresponding IE is given in TABLE 41 (i.e., a new field/parameter physicalCellId is included/configured in the higher layer parameter PUSCH-PathlossReferenceRS to indicate the non-serving (or neighboring) cell RS(s) for the estimation of path-loss)”, The path loss reference signal (see fig. 31) and spatial relation info signal (see fig. 30) are both higher layer parameters (see ¶ 0448). Higher layer parameters may be carried simultaneously via RRC signalling (see ¶ 0456).] and a spatialRelationInfo corresponding to the non-serving cell [Zhu, ¶ 0450, “In FIG. 30, an example of including/indicating the (non-serving (or neighboring) cell) PCI/TRP ID value in SRS-SpatialRelationInfo is presented, and a snippet of the corresponding IE is given in TABLE 37 (i.e., a new field/parameter physicalCellId is included/configured in the higher layer parameter SRS-SpatialRelationInfo to indicate the non-serving (or neighboring) cell RS(s) as the reference RS(s) for configuring the spatial domain transmission filter for the transmission of the SRS(s))”, Fig. 30 shows sounding reference signal (SRS) spatial relation info as higher layer parameters. The spatial relation info pertains to a neighbor (or non-serving) cell. See also Table 37.].
As per claim 3, Zhu et al. teach the method according to claim 1. Zhu et al. also teach further comprising: receiving a first medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) transmitted by a first cell, wherein the first MAC CE is configured to activate or deactivate a semi-persistent SRS corresponding to the first cell [Zhu, Table 21, “resourceType ENUMERATED { aperiodic, semiPersistent, periodic }”, The PCI/TRP ID value (which is also included in fig. 30) includes an enumeration of semi-persistent scheduling. SRS-SpatialRelationInfo may be sent via MAC-CE (see ¶ 0458).], and the first cell is a serving cell or a non-serving cell [Zhu, ¶ 0450, “In FIG. 30, an example of including/indicating the (non-serving (or neighboring) cell) PCI/TRP ID value in SRS-SpatialRelationInfo is presented, and a snippet of the corresponding IE is given in TABLE 37 (i.e., a new field/parameter physicalCellId is included/configured in the higher layer parameter SRS-SpatialRelationInfo to indicate the non-serving (or neighboring) cell RS(s) as the reference RS(s) for configuring the spatial domain transmission filter for the transmission of the SRS(s))”, Fig. 30 shows sounding reference signal (SRS) spatial relation info as higher layer parameters. The spatial relation info pertains to a serving cell and a neighbor (or non-serving) cell. See also Table 37. Paragraph [0452] additionally note how a UE would read the higher layer parameters.].
As per claim 11, Zhu et al. teach a method for measuring an uplink beam [Zhu, ¶ 0446, This portion of the description describes configuring uplink beams which will be sent by the UE.], performed by a network device [Zhu, ¶s 0450, SRS for the PUCCH is for measurement performed by the base station (or network device).] and comprising:
transmitting configuration information [Zhu, ¶ 0449, “FIG. 30 illustrates an example SRS spatial relation information 3000 according to embodiments of the present disclosure”, Uplink RS channel configurations are defined and sent to the UE (see also ¶ 0450, where the UE makes an assumption of physicalCellID within the higher layer parameters).], wherein the configuration information comprises a sounding reference signal (SRS) corresponding to a non-serving cell [Zhu, ¶ 0450, “In FIG. 30, an example of including/indicating the (non-serving (or neighboring) cell) PCI/TRP ID value in SRS-SpatialRelationInfo is presented, and a snippet of the corresponding IE is given in TABLE 37 (i.e., a new field/parameter physicalCellId is included/configured in the higher layer parameter SRS-SpatialRelationInfo to indicate the non-serving (or neighboring) cell RS(s) as the reference RS(s) for configuring the spatial domain transmission filter for the transmission of the SRS(s))”, Fig. 30 shows sounding reference signal (SRS) spatial relation info as higher layer parameters. The spatial relation info pertains to a serving cell and a neighbor (or non-serving) cell. See also Table 37. Paragraph [0452] additionally note how a UE would read the higher layer parameters.].
As per claim 12, Zhu et al. teach the method according to claim 11. Zhu et al. also teach wherein the configuration information further comprises: a path loss reference signal corresponding to the non-serving cell [Zhu, ¶ 0465, “In FIG. 31, an example of including/indicating the (non-serving (or neighboring) cell) PCI/TRP ID value in PUSCH-PathlossReferenceRS is presented, and a snippet of the corresponding IE is given in TABLE 41 (i.e., a new field/parameter physicalCellId is included/configured in the higher layer parameter PUSCH-PathlossReferenceRS to indicate the non-serving (or neighboring) cell RS(s) for the estimation of path-loss)”, The path loss reference signal (see fig. 31) and spatial relation info signal (see fig. 30) are both higher layer parameters (see ¶ 0448). Higher layer parameters may be carried simultaneously via RRC signalling (see ¶ 0456).] and a spatialRelationInfo corresponding to the non-serving cell [Zhu, ¶ 0450, “In FIG. 30, an example of including/indicating the (non-serving (or neighboring) cell) PCI/TRP ID value in SRS-SpatialRelationInfo is presented, and a snippet of the corresponding IE is given in TABLE 37 (i.e., a new field/parameter physicalCellId is included/configured in the higher layer parameter SRS-SpatialRelationInfo to indicate the non-serving (or neighboring) cell RS(s) as the reference RS(s) for configuring the spatial domain transmission filter for the transmission of the SRS(s))”, Fig. 30 shows sounding reference signal (SRS) spatial relation info as higher layer parameters. The spatial relation info pertains to a neighbor (or non-serving) cell. See also Table 37.].
As per claim 13, Zhu et al. teach the method according to claim 11, further comprising: transmitting a first medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) based on a time-frequency domain resource corresponding to the non-serving cell or a serving cell [Zhu, ¶ 0450, “In FIG. 30, an example of including/indicating the (non-serving (or neighboring) cell) PCI/TRP ID value in SRS-SpatialRelationInfo is presented, and a snippet of the corresponding IE is given in TABLE 37 (i.e., a new field/parameter physicalCellId is included/configured in the higher layer parameter SRS-SpatialRelationInfo to indicate the non-serving (or neighboring) cell RS(s) as the reference RS(s) for configuring the spatial domain transmission filter for the transmission of the SRS(s))”, Fig. 30 shows sounding reference signal (SRS) spatial relation info as higher layer parameters. The spatial relation info pertains to a serving cell and a neighbor (or non-serving) cell. See also Table 37. Paragraph [0452] additionally note how a UE would read the higher layer parameters. SRS-SpatialRelationInfo may be sent via MAC-CE (see ¶ 0458).], wherein the first MAC CE is configured to activate or deactivate a semi-persistent SRS corresponding to any one of the non-serving cell and the serving cell [Zhu, Table 21, “resourceType ENUMERATED { aperiodic, semiPersistent, periodic }”, The PCI/TRP ID value (which is also included in fig. 30) includes an enumeration of semi-persistent scheduling. SRS-SpatialRelationInfo may be sent via MAC-CE (see ¶ 0458).].
As per claim 33, Zhu et al. teach a communication apparatus, comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores computer programs, and the processor executes the computer programs stored in the memory [Zhu, fig. 3, elements 360, 310, and 340, ¶s 0071, 0073, and 0074, A UE is readily understood to have a processor, memory (containing software), and transceiver for performing the disclosed functions.], such that the apparatus performs:
receiving configuration information [Zhu, ¶ 0449, “FIG. 30 illustrates an example SRS spatial relation information 3000 according to embodiments of the present disclosure”, Uplink RS channel configurations are defined and sent to the UE (see also ¶ 0450, where the UE makes an assumption of physicalCellID within the higher layer parameters).], wherein the configuration information comprises a sounding reference signal (SRS) corresponding to a non-serving cell [Zhu, ¶ 0450, “In FIG. 30, an example of including/indicating the (non-serving (or neighboring) cell) PCI/TRP ID value in SRS-SpatialRelationInfo is presented, and a snippet of the corresponding IE is given in TABLE 37 (i.e., a new field/parameter physicalCellId is included/configured in the higher layer parameter SRS-SpatialRelationInfo to indicate the non-serving (or neighboring) cell RS(s) as the reference RS(s) for configuring the spatial domain transmission filter for the transmission of the SRS(s))”, Fig. 30 shows sounding reference signal (SRS) spatial relation info as higher layer parameters. The spatial relation info pertains to a serving cell and a neighbor (or non-serving) cell. See also Table 37. Paragraph [0452] additionally note how a UE would read the higher layer parameters.].
As per claim 34, Zhu et al. teach a communication apparatus, comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores computer programs, and the processor executes the computer programs stored in the memory [Zhu, fig. 2, elements 210, 215, 220, 225, and 230, ¶s 0062, 0065, 0067, and 0068, A base station is readily understood to have a processor, memory (containing software), and transceiver for performing the disclosed functions.], such that the apparatus performs the method according to claim 11 [See Rejection of Claim 11].
As per claim 37, Zhu et al. teach a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, being configured to store instructions, wherein when the instructions are executed [Zhu, fig. 3, elements 360, 310, and 340, ¶s 0071, 0073, and 0074, A UE is readily understood to have a processor, memory (containing software), and transceiver for performing the disclosed functions.], the method according to claim 1 is implemented [See Rejection of Claim 1].
As per claim 38, Zhu et al. teach a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, being configured to store instructions, wherein when the instructions are executed [Zhu, fig. 2, elements 210, 215, 220, 225, and 230, ¶s 0062, 0065, 0067, and 0068, A base station is readily understood to have a processor, memory (containing software), and transceiver for performing the disclosed functions.], the method according to claim 11 is implemented [See Rejection of Claim 11].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (US PG Pub 2022/0046458) in view of Alawieh et al. (US PG Pub 2023/0247446).
As per claim 6, Zhu et al. teach the method according to claim 1. Zhu et al. do not explicitly teach further comprising: deactivating, in response to determining that the non-serving cell changes, a semi-persistent SRS in an activated state corresponding to the non-serving cell; or, deactivating, in response to determining that the non-serving cell changes, a semi-persistent SRS corresponding to a cell list that only comprises an identity of the non-serving cell, wherein a timing advances corresponding to the non-serving cell and the terminal device is the same as a timing advance corresponding to the serving cell and the terminal device, and cells in the cell list are cells that are measured based on the SRS.
However, in an analogous art, Alawieh et al. teach deactivating, in response to determining that the non-serving cell changes, a semi-persistent SRS in an activated state corresponding to the non-serving cell [Alawieh, ¶ 0245, “The channel condition changes for a UE moving. The Reference Spatial Relation will change as well from one position to the next. To avoid the complexity and latency from permanently configuring a UE with changing characteristics, the NW can configure the UE to change, update or deactivate the reference spatial information based on a change with channel conditions. The condition can be based on an RSRP measurement, handover, a timed-out RS or other channel measurements”, Changing channel conditions (e.g., a non-serving cell change or handover) cause the UE to deactivate spatial relation based signalling (see also ¶s 0269, 0272, and 0273).].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the updating of spatial relation techniques of Alawieh et al. into Zhu et al. One would have been motivated to do this because adapting UE response to changing channel conditions provides more robust communications with a reasonable expectation of success.
As per claim 7, Zhu et al. in view of Alawieh et al. teach the method according to claim 6. Zhu et al. also teach further comprising: determining a cell list corresponding to semi-persistent SRS according [Zhu, Table 21, “resourceType ENUMERATED { aperiodic, semiPersistent, periodic }”, The PCI/TRP ID value (which is also included in fig. 30) includes an enumeration of semi-persistent scheduling] to a first MAC CE received [Zhu, ¶ 0450, “In FIG. 30, an example of including/indicating the (non-serving (or neighboring) cell) PCI/TRP ID value in SRS-SpatialRelationInfo is presented, and a snippet of the corresponding IE is given in TABLE 37 (i.e., a new field/parameter physicalCellId is included/configured in the higher layer parameter SRS-SpatialRelationInfo to indicate the non-serving (or neighboring) cell RS(s) as the reference RS(s) for configuring the spatial domain transmission filter for the transmission of the SRS(s))”, Fig. 30 shows sounding reference signal (SRS) spatial relation info as higher layer parameters. The spatial relation info pertains to a serving cell and a neighbor (or non-serving) cell. See also Table 37. Paragraph [0452] additionally note how a UE would read the higher layer parameters. PCI/TRP IDs received amount to a cell list. SRS-SpatialRelationInfo may be sent via MAC-CE (see ¶ 0458).].
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (US PG Pub 2022/0046458) in view of Manolakos et al. (US PG Pub 2024/0284383).
As per claim 8, Zhu et al. teach the method according to claim 1. Zhu et al. do not explicitly teach further comprising: receiving first downlink control information (DCI) transmitted by the serving cell, wherein the first DCI is configured to trigger an aperiodic SRS corresponding to the non-serving cell or the serving cell.
However, in an analogous art, Manolakos et al. teach receiving first downlink control information (DCI) transmitted by the serving cell, wherein the first DCI is configured to trigger an aperiodic SRS corresponding to the non-serving cell or the serving cell [Manolakos, ¶ 0098, “A UE may be configured to transmit SRS signals periodically or aperiodically. An aperiodic SRS (AP-SRS) is transmitted in response to a trigger, such as an indication received in a downlink control information (DCI) message”, The uplink SRS may be transmitted periodically. The configuration for the uplink SRS may be sent via DCI. See also fig. 5, step 516, ¶s 0101-0103 and Tables 1 and 2.].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the aperiodic SRS techniques of Manolakos et al. into Zhu et al. One would have been motivated to do this because utilizing DCI signalling to indicate SRS configurations (e.g. aperiodic transmission) would improve uplink beam measurement with a reasonable expectation of success.
As per claim 14, Zhu et al. teach the method according to claim 11. Zhu et al. do not explicitly teach further comprising: transmitting first downlink control information (DCI) based on a time-frequency domain resource corresponding to the serving cell, wherein the first DCI is configured to trigger an aperiodic SRS corresponding to the non-serving cell or the serving cell.
However, in an analogous art, Manolakos et al. teach transmitting first downlink control information (DCI) based on a time-frequency domain resource corresponding to the serving cell, wherein the first DCI is configured to trigger an aperiodic SRS corresponding to the non-serving cell or the serving cell [Manolakos, ¶ 0098, “A UE may be configured to transmit SRS signals periodically or aperiodically. An aperiodic SRS (AP-SRS) is transmitted in response to a trigger, such as an indication received in a downlink control information (DCI) message”, The uplink SRS may be transmitted periodically. The configuration for the uplink SRS may be sent via DCI. See also fig. 5, step 516, ¶s 0101-0103 and Tables 1 and 2.].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the aperiodic SRS techniques of Manolakos et al. into Zhu et al. One would have been motivated to do this because utilizing DCI signalling to indicate SRS configurations (e.g. aperiodic transmission) would improve uplink beam measurement with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The reference, ETSI 38.331 (see PTO-892), teaches spatial relation info as a parameter for PUCCH (see at least pgs. 531 and 532).
The reference, ETSI 38.214 (see PTO-892), teaches a UE sounding procedure with spatial relation info (see at least section 6.2.1).
The reference, Manolakos et al. (US PG Pub 2024/0204942), teaches UL-SRS configuration (see at least figs. 7A, 7B, and 10).
The reference, Zhou et al. (US PG Pub 2024/0097850), teaches indicating TCI (or spatial relation) states for multiple TRPs (see at least fig. 5).
The reference, Cui et al. (US PG Pub 2023/0099761), teaches configuring UL RS transmission for multiple cells (see at least fig. 3).
The reference, Huang et al. (US PG Pub 2021/0377904), teaches SRS configuration for a serving cell and neighboring cells (see at least fig. 5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul H. Masur whose telephone number is (571)270-7297. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 4:30 AM to 5PM.
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, Rebecca Song can be reached at (571) 270-3667. 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.
/Paul H. Masur/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2417
Prosecution Insights