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) submitted on 7/30/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 10, 11, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2023/0262671 A1), hereinafter Chen, in view of Yunfeng Sun et al. (US 2012/0270591 A1), hereinafter Yunfeng Sun.
Regarding Claim 1:
Chen teaches a network node for wireless communication, comprising: a processing system that includes one or more processors and one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors, the processing system configured to cause the network node to ([0013] “an apparatus configured for wireless communication” includes “at least one processor, and a memory coupled to the at least one processor,” wherein the processor is configured to determine resources for a GC-DMRS associated with multiple UEs and initiate transmission of the GC-DMRS and PDSCH; and [0073] base station 105 includes “one or more processors 352,” “one or more memory devices 354,” and “one or more transmitters 356,” wherein processor 352 “execute[s] instructions stored in the memory 354 to perform the operations described herein”; see also paragraph [0074], disclosing that transmitter 356 transmits “reference signals, synchronization signals, control information and data to one or more other devices”).
transmit a demodulation reference signal (DMRS) associated with multiple physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) communications ([0065] “transmission of a group common demodulation reference signal (GC-DMRS) to multiple UEs of a group,” wherein the resource allocation for the GC-DMRS corresponds to an allocation of “physical downlink shared channels (PDSCHs) for UEs of the group”; and [0066] “a base station may determine an allocation of resources . . . for a GC-DMRS associated with a group of UEs,” and “[t]he GC-DMRS may be allocated to the same set of resource block groups (RBGs) that are allocated to PDSCHs for the group of UEs”).
transmit the multiple PDSCH communications associated with the DMRS to multiple user equipments (UEs)” ([0067] “the base station transmits the GC-DMRS to all UEs of the group, in addition to transmitting the UE-specific PDSCHs to each UE of the group”; further, “[t]he UEs may perform channel estimation based on the GC-DMRS and use the channel estimate to demodulate a respective UE-specific PDSCH”).
Chen does not explicitly teach wherein the DMRS has a common energy per resource element (EPRE).
Yunfeng Sun teaches wherein the DMRS has a common energy per resource element (EPRE) ([0029] “the DMRS resource element refers to a resource element for transmitting DMRS,” and the sand-point and graticule-line grids are “resource elements for bearing DMRS”; [0031] “the transmission power of the DMRS at each layer in each resource element is the same”; and [0047] “for each value of rank, the total transmission power of the RE represented by sand point grids and represented by graticule line grids in FIG. 1 are configured to be the same”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Chen’s group-common DMRS to use Yunfeng Sun uniform DMRS-resource-element power configuration because doing so would have reduced control-signaling overhead and improved channel-estimation efficiency (Yunfeng Sun, [0031]).
Regarding Claim 10: Chen and Yunfeng Sun teach the network node of claim 1.
Chen further teaches wherein the multiple PDSCH communications are frequency division multiplexed within a frequency span occupied by the DMRS ([0077] the base station allocates “the same set of frequency resources” to the GC-DMRS and the overall PDSCH resources, and the overall PDSCH FDRA includes “the same set of RBGs as the GC-DMRS resource allocation”; and [0078] the base station allocates frequency resources from the overall PDSCH FDRA to each individual PDSCH, wherein “a different RB of each RBG may be allocated to a PDSCH for each UE,” and “RBs allocated to a PDSCH for one UE are separated in frequency by RBs allocated to PDSCHs for other UEs of the group”). Thus, Chen teaches frequency-division multiplexing of the UE-specific PDSCH communications within the frequency span occupied by the GC-DMRS.
Claims 11, 19, and 20, directed to corresponding method and computer readable-medium claims, are rejected under the same reasoning as Claims 1, 10, and 1, respectively.
Claims 2–5, 7, 12–15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Yunfeng Sun, and further in view of Ng et al. (US 2013/0265951 A1), hereinafter Ng.
Regarding Claim 2: Chen and Yunfeng Sun teach the network node of claim 1.
Chen and Yunfeng Sun do not explicitly teach transmit, to the multiple UEs, information that indicates a common traffic-to-pilot power ratio (TPR) associated with the multiple PDSCH communications.
Ng further teaches the transmit, to the multiple UEs, information that indicates a common traffic-to-pilot power ratio (TPR) associated with the multiple PDSCH communications ([0049] “The high order MU-MIMO UEs can also assume that the PDSCH EPRE to DM-RS EPRE ratio is 0 dB”; [0052] “the network entity may provide control signaling” that includes “a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) energy per resource element (EPRE) to DM-RS EPRE ratio”; and [0089] “the network entity may send the control information to the UE to indicate the DM-RS port(s) and PDSCH EPRE to DM-RS EPRE ratio”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Chen and Yunfeng Sun group-common-DMRS system to transmit Ng’s common PDSCH-to-DMRS power ratio to the multiple UEs because doing so would have reduced signaling overhead for MU-MIMO operation (Ng, [0055]).
Regarding Claim 3: Chen and Yunfeng Sun, and Ng teach the network node of claim 2.
Chen and Yunfeng Sun do not explicitly teach wherein the multiple PDSCH communications associated with the DMRS have a common EPRE.
Ng further teaches wherein the multiple PDSCH communications associated with the DMRS have a common EPRE ([0049] “The high order MU-MIMO UEs can also assume that the PDSCH EPRE to DM-RS EPRE ratio is 0 dB”; [0052], identifying the signaled information as “a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) energy per resource element (EPRE) to DM-RS EPRE ratio,” and [0089], disclosing that the network entity sends control information indicating that ratio).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ng’s common 0-dB PDSCH-to-DMRS ratio to Chen and Yunfeng Sun’s group-common-DMRS system because doing so would have reduced signaling overhead for MU-MIMO operation (Ng, paragraph [0055]).
Regarding Claim 4: Chen and Yunfeng Sun, and Ng teach the network node of claim 2.
Chen and Yunfeng Sun do not explicitly teach wherein the common EPRE associated with the DMRS is associated with the common TPR and an EPRE associated with a reference PDSCH communication among the multiple PDSCH communications.
Ng further teaches wherein the common EPRE associated with the DMRS is associated with the common TPR and an EPRE associated with a reference PDSCH communication among the multiple PDSCH communications ([0052] the control signaling includes “a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) energy per resource element (EPRE) to DM-RS EPRE ratio”; [0049] the high-order MU-MIMO UEs assume that ratio is 0 dB; and [0089] the network entity sends control information indicating the ratio).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ng’s PDSCH-EPRE-to-DMRS-EPRE relationship to Chen and Yunfeng Sun’s group-common-DMRS system because Ng teaches that joint signaling reduces the signaling overhead required for MU-MIMO operation (Ng, paragraph [0055]).
Regarding Claim 5: Chen and Yunfeng Sun and Ng teach the network node of claim 1.
Chen and Yunfeng Sun do not explicitly teach transmit, to each of the multiple UEs, a respective indication of a traffic-to-pilot power ratio (TPR) associated with a respective PDSCH communication, of the multiple PDSCH communications, transmitted to each respective UE.
Ng further teaches transmit, to each of the multiple UEs, a respective indication of a traffic-to-pilot power ratio (TPR) associated with a respective PDSCH communication, of the multiple PDSCH communications, transmitted to each respective UE ([0052], disclosing control signaling containing “a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) energy per resource element (EPRE) to DM-RS EPRE ratio”; [0088], disclosing that the network entity identifies the ratio applicable to a UE; and [0089], disclosing that the network entity “send[s] the control information to the UE” to indicate the ratio).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ng’s respective PDSCH-to-DMRS power-ratio indication in Chen’s separate UE-specific DCI because Ng teaches that the ratio enables a UE to identify its intended data in a multiuser resource block (Ng, [0085]–[0086]).
Regarding Claim 7: Chen and Yunfeng Sun and Ng teach the network node of claim 5.
Chen and Yunfeng Sun do not explicitly teach wherein the TPR associated with the respective PDSCH communication is associated with an EPRE of the respective PDSCH communication and the common EPRE associated with the DMRS.
Ng further teaches wherein the TPR associated with the respective PDSCH communication is associated with an EPRE of the respective PDSCH communication and the common EPRE associated with the DMRS ([0052] “The control signaling provided by the network entity may include . . . a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) energy per resource element (EPRE) to DM-RS EPRE ratio”; [0088] “The network entity then identifies a PDSCH EPRE to DM-RS EPRE ratio”; and [0089] “the network entity may send the control information to the UE to indicate the DM-RS port(s) and PDSCH EPRE to DM-RS EPRE ratio”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ng’s PDSCH-EPRE-to-DMRS-EPRE TPR signaling to Chen and ZTE Sun’s common-DMRS-EPRE arrangement because this power relationship would have enabled each UE to separate and distinguish its intended PDSCH signal based on the indicated power ratio (Ng, [0053]).
Claims [12–15 and 17], directed to corresponding method claims, are rejected under the same reasoning as Claims [2–5 and 7], respectively.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Yunfeng Sun and Ng, and further in view of Jing Sun et al. (US 2016/0119096 A1), hereinafter Jing Sun.
Regarding Claim 6: Chen and Yunfeng Sun, and Ng teach the network node of claim 5.
- Chen and Yunfeng Sun do not explicitly teach wherein the respective indication of the TPR associated with the respective PDSCH communication [is provided] according to a codepoint mapped to one of the candidate TPR values; transmitting, to each respective UE of the multiple UEs, information configuring a set of candidate TPR values that are each mapped to a respective codepoint.
Ng further teaches wherein the respective indication of the TPR associated with the respective PDSCH communication [is provided] according to a codepoint mapped to one of the candidate TPR values ([0055] and Table 1: a “single bit field may jointly indicate the power offset,” with signaled value 0 mapped to a PDSCH-EPRE-to-DMRS-EPRE ratio of 0 dB and signaled value 1 mapped to −3 dB; [0085] the UE identifies the applicable ratio “as 0 dB or −3 dB” from “a jointly encoded signal bit field in the downlink control information”; and [0089] the network entity sends the DCI containing the jointly encoded indication).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ng’s PDSCH-EPRE-to-DMRS-EPRE TPR signaling to Chen and ZTE Sun’s common-DMRS-EPRE arrangement because this power relationship would have enabled each UE to separate and distinguish its intended PDSCH signal based on the indicated power ratio (Ng, [0053]).
Chen and Yunfeng Sun and Ng do not explicitly teach transmit, to each respective UE of the multiple UEs, information configuring a set of candidate TPR values that are each mapped to a respective codepoint.
Jing Sun teaches transmit, to each respective UE of the multiple UEs, information configuring a set of candidate TPR values that are each mapped to a respective codepoint ([0012] “two or more pairs of TPR values may be provided to the UE via RRC signaling,” and the TPR information may include “an indication of which pair of TPR values are to be selected”; [0060] the base station transmits TPR signaling to the UE using RRC signaling, which may contain “one or more pairs of TPRs”; [0061] a PDCCH TPR field may change or overwrite a TPR previously provided through RRC signaling; and [0062] a flag value of one identifies a first TPR pair and a flag value of zero identifies a second TPR pair).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Jing Sun’s RRC-configured TPR pairs and DCI/PDCCH flag-based selection to the combined system of Chen and Yunfeng Sun and Ng to permit dynamic selection between configured TPR pairs while limiting dynamic signaling overhead (Jing Sun, [0060]-[0062]).
Claim 16, directed to the corresponding method, is rejected under the same reasoning as Claim 6.
Claims 8, 9, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Yunfeng Sun and Ng, and further in view of Tsai et al. (US 2017/0094668 A1), hereinafter Tsai.
Regarding Claim 8: Chen and Yunfeng Sun and Ng teach the network node of claim 5.
Chen and Yunfeng Sun and Ng do not explicitly teach wherein the common EPRE associated with the DMRS is associated with a PDSCH communication, of the multiple PDSCH communications, with a highest EPRE.
Tsai teaches wherein the common EPRE associated with the DMRS is associated with a PDSCH communication, of the multiple PDSCH communications, with a highest EPRE ([0023] for NOMA operation, “the signals to the two UEs are superposed and precoded with the same precoder and transmitted over the same spatial layer”; [0030] “two co-scheduled users, user A and user B, are allocated with 0.2P and 0.8P,” and “user A is signaled by 0.2 and user B is signaled by 0.8”; and [0033] an alternative approach uses a “single DMRS port for two superposed users” and maintains “the ratio of total PDSCH EPRE to DMRS EPRE” at one).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Tsai’s unequal PDSCH-power allocation and single-DMRS arrangement to Chen and Yunfeng Sun and Ng’s multiuser arrangement because Tsai teaches that allocating greater power to the farther user maximizes system throughput through proportional fairness and facilitates interference cancellation (Tsai, paragraph [0024]).
Regarding Claim 9: Chen and Yunfeng Sun and Ng teach the network node of claim 5.
Chen and Yunfeng Sun and Ng do not explicitly teach wherein the common EPRE associated with the DMRS is associated with a PDSCH communication, of the multiple PDSCH communications, with a lowest EPRE.
Tsai teaches wherein the common EPRE associated with the DMRS is associated with a PDSCH communication, of the multiple PDSCH communications, with a lowest EPRE ([0023] for NOMA operation, “the signals to the two UEs are superposed and precoded with the same precoder and transmitted over the same spatial layer”; [0030] “two co-scheduled users, user A and user B, are allocated with 0.2P and 0.8P,” and “user A is signaled by 0.2 and user B is signaled by 0.8”; and [0033] an alternative approach uses a “single DMRS port for two superposed users” and maintains “the ratio of total PDSCH EPRE to DMRS EPRE” at one).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Tsai’s unequal PDSCH-power allocation and single-DMRS arrangement to Chen and Yunfeng Sun and Ng’s multiuser arrangement because Tsai teaches that different power levels support interference cancellation and maximize system throughput through proportional fairness (Tsai, [0024]).
Claim 18, directed to the corresponding method and reciting the highest-EPRE or lowest-EPRE alternatives, is rejected under the same reasoning as Claims 8 and 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASAN CHEEMA whose telephone number is (571)272-8722. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at (571) 270-0422. 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.
/H.A.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights