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
The information disclosure statement (IDS) is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-30 of copending Application No. 18364311 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of following:
- With respect to claim, the Copending ’11 discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (see claim 1, line 1 of Copending ‘11), comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to: receive, from a base station, a configuration for an uplink phase tracking reference signal (PTRS) (see claim 1, lines 5-6 of Copending ’11) receive, from the base station, downlink control information (DCI) that schedules a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) based on spatial division multiplexing (SDM), the PUSCH associated with a plurality of transmission parameters (see claim 1, lines 7-10 of Copending ‘11); and transmit, to the base station, the PUSCH associated with the plurality of transmission parameters based on an association between the uplink PTRS and demodulation reference signal (DMRS) ports (see claim 1, lines 13-16 of Copending ‘11).
- Regarding the claims, the Application merely broaden the scope of the Copending by eliminate term “identify one or more uplink PTRS configurations based on the transmission parameter”. It have been held that the omission of the element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex Parte Raine, 168 USPQ 375 (bd. App. 1969); omission of a reference element whose function is not need would be obvious to one skill in the art.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8, 11,13-17, 20, 22, 25, 27, 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Yokomakura et al. (Pub. No. 20200008102).
- With respect to claim 1, 15, 29-30, Yokomakura teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (e.g. Fig. 8 discloses UE), comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to: receive, from a base station, a configuration for an uplink phase tracking reference signal (PTRS) (e.g. claim 7 discloses “receiving circuitry configured to receive first information configuring transmission of phase tracking reference signal (PTRS)”); receive, from the base station, downlink control information (DCI) that schedules a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) based on spatial division multiplexing (SDM), the PUSCH associated with a plurality of transmission parameters (e.g. par. 140 discloses “On the basis of the information used for the scheduling of PUSCH, the multiplexing unit 1075 determines the number of PUSCH layers to be spatial-multiplexed”; and claim 11 disclose DCI include PUSCH); and transmit, to the base station, the PUSCH associated with the plurality of transmission parameters based on an association between the uplink PTRS and demodulation reference signal (DMRS) ports (e.g. claim 7 discloses “transmitting circuitry configured to transmit the PUSCH , a demodulation reference signal (DMRS)”).
- With respect to claims 2, 6, 16, 20, Yokomakura teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to associate the uplink PTRS with the DMRS ports based on a plurality of bits included in a PTRS-DMRS association field of the DCI (e.g. par. 66-65 and par. 110 discloses “ PTRS may be generated differently depending on a Modulation and Coding Scheme (MSC) and a modulation scheme”; par. 121).
- With respect to claim 3, 17, Yokomakura teaches wherein one or more first DMRS ports share a first PTRS port and one or more second DMRS ports share a second PTRS port, and wherein the DMRS ports are included in at least one of the one or more first DMRS ports or the one or more second DMRS ports (e.g. par. 121 discloses “ an antenna port for transmitting PTRS is the same as at least one of antenna ports for DMRS. For example, in a case that the number of antenna ports for DMRS is two and the number of antenna ports for PTRS is one, the antenna port for the PTRS may be the same as one or both of the antenna ports for the DMRS. The antenna port for the DMRS and the antenna port for the PTRS may be assumed to be quasi co-located (QCL). For example, a frequency offset due to DMRS phase noise is inferred from the frequency offset compensated by PTRS. Furthermore, regardless of whether PTRS is mapped, DMRS may always be transmitted”).
- With respect to claims 8, 22, Yokomakura teaches wherein the DMRS ports are associated with more than 4 layers for transmission of the PUSCH based on the SDM (e.g. par. 52, 56, 69, 126, 144 discloses 4 layers associated with DMRS ports).
- With respect to claim 11, 25, Yokomakura teaches wherein the uplink PTRS is associated with the DMRS ports based on a first plurality of bits and a second plurality of bits included in a PTRS-DMRS association field of the DCI (e.g. it inherently to understand that DCI comprises filed for downlink control that comprise bits).
- With respect to claim 13, 27, Yokomakura teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to map the uplink PTRS to one or more resource elements (REs) that correspond to at least one associated DMRS port of the DMRS ports associated with the more than 4 layers (e.g. par. 52, 56, 69, 126, 144 discloses 4 layers associated with DMRS ports).
- With respect to claims 14, 28, Yokomakura teaches at least one of an antenna or a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor (e.g. Fig. 8, 9 shows the antenna couple to processor).
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.
Claim(s) 5, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokomakura et al. (Pub. No. 20200008102) in view of Lim et al. (Pub. No. 20250323756).
- With respect to claims 5, 19, Yokomakura explicitly fails to discloses a first bit of the plurality of bits is a most significant bit (MSB) and a second bit of the plurality of bits is a least significant bit (LSB). Lim teaches the first bit is MSB and the second bit is LSB (see claim 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the MSB and LSB into Yokomakura invention for indicating PTRS port based on MSB and LSB for controlling in communication.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, 9-10, 12, 18, 21, 23-24, 26 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. See PTO-892.
. Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUC H TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3172. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Flex.
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, Sujoy K. Kundu can be reached at 571-272-8586. 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.
/PHUC H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471