DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 9-14 are currently pending.
Drawings
Figures 1, 2, and 11 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated1. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 9, 13, 14, and all dependent thereon, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 9, 13, and 14: these claims are directed to at least one apparatus (i.e. a terminal, a base station, and a system including a terminal and base station) while also reciting operational steps. For example, claim 9 is directed to a terminal that comprises a receiver “that receives a higher layer signaling… and receives downlink control information (DCI) for scheduling, etc.” (lines 2-6). Similarly, claim 13 is directed to a base station that comprises a transmitter “that transmits a higher layer signaling… and transmits downlink control information (DCI) for scheduling, etc.” (lines 2-6). It is unclear whether the metes and bounds of the claim cover the respective physical apparatus itself or require active operational steps. For purposes of examination, claims 9, 13, and 14 are interpreted to require the said active operational steps. A similar rationale applies to claim 14.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 11 appears to fail to include all the limitations of claim 9, i.e. the reception of “a higher layer signaling.” Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 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 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 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claims 9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by WO Publication No. 2022/031544 A1 (hereinafter “Lee”) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lee in view of either U.S. Publication No. 2022/0294588 A1 (hereinafter “Harrison”) or WO Publication No. 2020/221452 A1 (hereinafter “Hu”).
Regarding claims 9 and 12-14: Lee teaches a terminal comprising:
a receiver that receives a higher layer signaling for configuring a first enhanced demodulation reference signal (DMRS) configuration type or a second enhanced DMRS configuration type, and receives downlink control information (DCI) for scheduling a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH), the DCI including an antenna port indication (see, e.g., [0099]-[0104], [0139]-[0146]; higher layer signaling configures DMRS types; DCI includes antenna port indications); and
a processor that controls reception of a DMRS for the PDSCH, based on an association between one or more DMRS ports and a number of code division multiplexing (CDM) groups that correspond to a value of the antenna port indication (see, e.g., [0099]-[0104], [0139]-[0146]; DMRS processing is associated with CDM groups corresponding to antenna port indication),
wherein two CDM groups are available when the first enhanced DMRS configuration type is configured, three CDM groups are available when the second enhanced DMRS configuration type is configured, and each of the CDM groups includes a first group subset corresponding to four existing DMRS ports and a second group subset corresponding to four enhanced DMRS ports (see, e.g., [0102]-[0123]; note configuration variations; including 2-symbol DMRS for at least 4 ports [0102], and co-scheduling [0120]-[0123]; also subset assignment [0105]).
Lee does not explicitly state “a first group subset corresponding to four existing DMRS ports and a second group subset corresponding to four enhanced DMRS ports.” To the extent this feature is not inherent to the system of Lee, due to further port assignment and/or combination inclusion for utilization, the feature is nevertheless taught in Harrison (see, e.g., [0018], [0107], [0111], [0114], [0145], [0202]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Harrison, such as the subset implementation and DMRS configuration(s), within the system of Lee, in order to improve resource utilization or interference reduction.
Alternatively to Harrison, the said feature is taught by Hu (see, e.g., paras. at p.1; line 9, 14:4, 14:11, 16: 21). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Harrison, such as the subset implementation and DMRS configuration(s), within the system of Lee, in order to enhance DMRS port indication and/or improve resource utilization.
The rationale set forth above regarding the terminal of claim 9 is applicable to the method, base station, and system of claims 12-14, respectively.
Regarding claim 11: Lee alternatively modified by Harrison or Hu further teaches wherein the antenna port indication has a greater number of bits than a number of bits in a case where the higher layer signaling is not received (see, e.g., Lee [0119], [0120]; Hu 1:23, 2:31; and/or Harrison [0267]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 9 is applicable to claim 11.
13. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over and in further view of either U.S. Publication No. 2023/0231683 A1 (hereinafter “Ali”) or U.S. Publication No. 2023/0412340 A1 (hereinafter “Maki”).
Regarding claim 10: Lee alternatively modified by Harrison or Hu does not explicitly state wherein when a rank is two or less, the one or more DMRS ports are included in only either the existing DMRS ports or the enhanced DMRS ports. However, this feature is taught by Ali (see, e.g., [0101]-[0103]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Ali, such as the port configuration, within the system of Lee modified by Harrison or Hu, in order to enhance channel estimation.
Alternatively to Ali, the said feature is taught by Maki (see, e.g., p. 15; reference claims 1-9; figure 7; see also figure 12, [0122], [0143], [0147], [0149], [0158] note overlapping teachings with respect to signaling and port configuration). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Maki, such as the signaling and/or configuration, within the system of Lee modified by Harrison or Hu, in order to enhance channel estimation.
Relevant Art
14. The following prior art not relied upon in this Office action is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: See form PTO-892.
Conclusion
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS SLOMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM 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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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.
/NICHOLAS SLOMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
1 See ETSI TS 138 211 v16.2.0 (2020-07); pp. 71, 76, 102.
Prosecution Insights