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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/5/26 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments, on page 5, with respect to the objection to the title have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the title has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, on page 5, with respect to the objection to the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, starting on page 5, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Seok (US 20230179348 A1).
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su (US 20240215015 A1) in view of Seok (US 20230179348 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Su discloses:
“A terminal device comprising: reception circuitry configured to receive a random-access response grant indicated by a Medium Access Control Element (MAC CE) in a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH), and” ([¶ 0004]: “After detecting the Msg1, the gNB will respond by transmitting in downlink (DL) a random-access response (RAR) (i.e., Msg2) on a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH), in Step 2.”; [¶ 0283]: “In the case of DMRS sequence, for example, for cyclic prefix (CP) OFDM, a new scrambling ID may be either signaled (in RRC, MAC CE or RAR or LI signaling) or predetermined and used by UE when the UE is able to do msg3 repetition.”)
“transmission circuitry configured to transmit a msg3 Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) scheduled by the random-access response grant, wherein” ([¶ 0004]: “In Step 3, after successfully decoding the Msg2, the UE continues the random access procedure by transmitting in UL a PUSCH message (i.e., Msg3) for terminal identification and RRC connection establishment request.”)
“a parameter for determining mapping of Demodulation Reference Signal (DMRS) for the msg3 PUSCH is determined … is determined as a value ‘pos1’ or the value ‘pos2’ based on whether frequency hopping is enabled or not in a case that repetition is not applied to the msg3 PUSCH.” ([¶ 0200]: “If frequency hopping is disabled, the UE shall assume dmrs-AdditionalPosition equals to ‘pos2’ and up to two additional DMRS can be transmitted according to PUSCH duration. If frequency hopping is enabled, the UE shall assume dmrs-AdditionalPosition equals to ‘pos1’ and up to one additional DMRS can be transmitted according to PUSCH duration.”)
Su does not explicitly disclose the parameter is determined “as a value ‘pos2’ regardless of whether frequency hopping is enabled or not in a case that repetition is applied to the msg3 PUSCH.”
However, Seok discloses the missing feature the parameter is determined “as a value ‘pos2’ regardless of whether frequency hopping is enabled or not in a case that repetition is applied to the msg3 PUSCH.” (¶ 0222]: “Referring to FIG. 27b, if repeated PUSCH transmission via frequency hopping is configured, the number of symbols constituting one hop (transmission group) may be up to seven. Accordingly, a position of a DMRS symbol may be determined regardless of whether frequency hopping is configured. That is, a DMRS symbol may be located in the same manner as in the case where frequency hopping is not configured (see FIG. 27a).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Su and Seok, to modify the DMRS pattern determination as disclosed by Su, to be used within the DMRS pattern determination as disclosed by Seok. The motivation for utilizing the technique is that it allows for improved optimization that takes into account repeated transmissions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Su with Seok to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 2 is substantially similar to claim 1, with the differences amounting to that claim 1 is from the perspective of a terminal device while claim 2 is from the perspective of a base station. Thus, claim 2 is rejected for substantially similar reasons to claim 1.
Claims 3 is substantially similar to claim 1, with the differences amounting to that claim 1 is directed toward an apparatus while claim 3 is directed towards a method. Thus, claim 3 is rejected for substantially similar reasons to claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached at (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights