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 .
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 21-34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12063172. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed limitations are similar in scope with obvious wording variations.
Instant Application
US 12063172
Claim 21. An apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to:
process, based on signaling from a base station, one or more cell reference signal (CRS) rate matching patterns;
determine a control resource set (CORESET) pool for each of the one or more CRS rate matching patterns; and
apply the one or more CRS rate matching patterns to a CORESET for a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) based on the indication of the CORESET pool.
Claim 1. A method, comprising: at a user equipment (UE) in multiple Downlink Control Information (multi-DCI) based multiple transmission and reception point (multi-TRP) configuration having simultaneous connections with a first next generation node B (gNB) and a second gNB over a same carrier:
receiving, from one of the first or second gNBs, one or more cell reference signal (CRS) rate matching patterns, wherein the one or more CRS rate matching patterns comprise an indication of a control resource set (CORESET) pool for each of the one or more CRS rate matching patterns;
applying the one or more CRS rate matching patterns to a CORESET for a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) based on the indication of the CORESET pool;
determining whether a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) is scheduled by a DCI; when the PUCCH is scheduled by the DCI, determining whether a CORESET from which the DCI is decoded has a configured CORESET pool; when the CORESET from which the DCI is decoded has a configured CORESET pool, setting the default TCI state and pathloss reference signal to a CORESET having a lowest CORESET identification among CORESETs having the same CORESET pool indication as the DCI that triggers the PUCCH transmission in a latest PDCCH monitoring slot; and when the CORESET from which the DCI is decoded does not have a configured CORESET pool, setting the default TCI state and pathloss reference signal to a CORESET in a predefined CORESET pool having a lowest CORSET identification.
Note that the table above only compared the conflicting claim 1. However, the Applicant is advised that the other independent and dependent claims in instant application also have their conflicting claims in US 12063172 and thus are rejected on a similar fashion as that in the table above, resulting in a double patenting rejection to all claims in instant application.
Thus, this double patenting rejection is necessary to prevent unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees.
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) 21, 25-26, 30 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata (US 20150256307) in view of Kim (US 20220150011).
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 21/26/30, Nagata teaches An apparatus (user terminal) comprising processing circuitry configured to:
process ([0052-0053], user terminal determines “predetermined CRS patterns applied to rate matching” based on DCI transmitted from a base station.) , based on signaling from a base station ([0052], “the radio base station notifies the user terminal of bit information indicating a predetermined rate matching pattern by including the bit information in DCI.” And [Fig.4A and 0053], “predetermined CRS patterns applied to rate matching.”), one or more cell reference signal (CRS) rate matching patterns ([0052], “CRS pattern to use as a rate matching pattern.”).
However, Nagata does not teach determine a control resource set (CORESET) pool for each of the one or more CRS rate matching patterns; and apply the one or more CRS rate matching patterns to a CORESET for a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) based on the indication of the CORESET pool.
In an analogous art, Kim teaches determine ([0229], “the base station may instruct and/or deliver information on two CRS patterns to the UE, and may also instruct and/or deliver information on the association (or mapping) relationship between the CRS pattern and the CORESET group.”) a control resource set (CORESET) pool for each of the one or more CRS rate matching patterns ([0229], “the i-th CRS pattern and the i-th CORESET group may be connected in a one-to-one relationship.”); and
apply the one or more CRS rate matching patterns to a CORESET for a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) based on the indication of the CORESET pool ([0229], “The UE may perform rate matching on the first CRS pattern connected to the first CORESET group for the first PDSCH, and may perform rate matching on the second CRS pattern connected to the second CORESET group for the second PDSCH.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Nagata to specify relationship between a CORESET and a CRS pattern as taught by Kim. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to perform rate matching on a corresponding a CRS pattern.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 25/34, Kim teaches wherein the apparatus operates in a multiple Downlink Control Information (multi-DCI) based multiple transmission and reception point (multi-TRP) configuration ([0227], “multi-DCI-based M-TRP scheme”) having simultaneous connections with a first base station and a second base station ([Fig.9 and 0229], “cooperative transmission between two TRPs is performed.” And [0171], ““TRP” may be replaced with ... a transmission point (TP), and a base station (gNB, etc.).”) over a same carrier ([0176], “Non-coherent joint transmission (NCJT) is a method in which multiple Transmission Points (TPs) transmit data to one User Equipment (UE) using the same time frequency ... multi-DCI-based cooperative transmission (e.g. multi DCI based NCJT).” In other words, the UE receives downlink data from two base stations by using a same time frequency resource.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Nagata to specify different base stations as taught by Kim. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to perform joint transmission.
Claim(s) 22, 24, 27, 29, 31 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata in view of Kim, and further in view of Gao (US 20230132040).
Regarding claim(s) 22/27/31, Gao teaches wherein the one or more CRS rate matching patterns are configured in two sets of CRS rate matching patterns ([Fig.15 and 0136], “a UE 1112 may be configured with two sets of LTE CRS patterns, each associated with a CORESET pool index.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Nagata to specify sets of CRS patterns as taught by Gao. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need for PDSCH transmission.
Regarding claim(s) 24/29/33, Gao teaches wherein determining the CORESET pool for each of the one or more CRS rate matching patterns is based on the set of CRS rate matching patterns to which each of the one or more CRS rate matching patterns belongs ([Fig.15 and 0139], “A PDSCH with an indicated TCI state is rate matched around a set of CRS patterns associated with a CORESET pool for which the TCI state is associated to.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Nagata to specify sets of CRS patterns as taught by Gao. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need for PDSCH transmission.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 23, 28 and 32 is/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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIREN QIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5444. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZHIREN QIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights