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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the TPMI field" in the second paragraph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the TPMI field" in lines 4, 6 and 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the TPMI field" in the second paragraph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the TPMI field" in lines 3, 6 and 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the TPMI field" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the TPMI field" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the TPMI field" in lines 4, 6, and 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the TPMI field" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
(NOTE: These TPMI field is trying to reference the one from their respective independent claim however it is unclear as the independent claim references a first and second TPMI field and thus there is insufficient antecedent basis for “The TPMI”.)
Claims 6, 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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 6, 10 and 20 the terms “first part” and “last part” of a matrix are mathematically ambiguous. An interpretation of it could refer to N columns, N rows, or a specific submatrix. Furthermore, "…a scaling factor of the first precoding matrix used for the first panel is determined by the matrix part of the first precoding matrix used for the first panel configured for power of modulated data does not increase after applying the first precoding matrix…” is unclear on what, the scaling factor or matrix part, is being configured for power. Additionally, for “power of modulated data does not increase after applying the first precoding matrix used for the first panel and transmit power of pre-coded data over each used antenna port of the first panel is the same… the second panel configured for power of modulated data does not increase after applying the second precoding matrix used for the second panel and the transmit power of each used antenna port of the second panel is the same.” It is unclear whether the transmit power is equalized across the port or if the transmit power of each port remains unchanged. These deficiencies makes it difficult to interpret the scope of the limitation and will require clarification to further prosecution and search.
Regarding claims 7, 11, and 21 they are rejected as being relied upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yuan et al. (US 20230069053 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 14-16 Yuan discloses:
A memory and A processor coupled to the memory (Paragraph [0006], “a UE for wireless communication may include memory and one or more processors operatively coupled to the memory.”)
receive downlink control information (DCI) containing a first transmit precoding matrix indicator (TPMI) field and a second TPMI field that schedules a spatial division multiplex (SDM)-based multi-panel simultaneous physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission with up to four layers; (Paragraph [0040], “According to the SDM 310 (e.g., non-coherent joint transmission), the UE 120 may transmit the first PUSCH transmission occasion 320 (shown as a first layer) and the second PUSCH transmission occasion 330 (shown as a second layer superimposed over the first layer) in a same time and frequency resource, but different spatial resources.” And paragraph [0041], “the UE 120 may transmit the first PUSCH transmission occasion 320 using a first antenna panel 360, and the UE 120 may transmit the second PUSCH transmission occasion 330 using a second antenna panel 370.” And paragraph [0042], “For a codebook-based MIMO, a transmitted precoding matrix indicator (TPMI) index per antenna panel may be identified by DCI, an uplink transmission configuration indicator (TCI) per antenna panel may be identified by DCI…” The UE operates on two layers which is still within the up to four and each of the two panels have their own TPMI identified by DCI which was determined by the BS.)
and determine, for a user equipment (UE) equipped with a first panel and a second panel, a first precoding matrix indicated by the first TPMI field is the precoding matrix used for the first panel and a second precoding matrix indicated by the second TPMI field is the precoding matrix used for the second panel. (Paragraph [0041], “the UE 120 may transmit the first PUSCH transmission occasion 320 using a first antenna panel 360, and the UE 120 may transmit the second PUSCH transmission occasion 330 using a second antenna panel 370.” And paragraph [0042], “For a codebook-based MIMO, a transmitted precoding matrix indicator (TPMI) index per antenna panel may be identified by DCI” The TPMI is identified for each panel and it is known in the art that the TPMI carries a precoding matrix.)
Regarding claims 3 and 17 Yuan discloses:
wherein the first precoding matrix indicated by the first TPMI field and the second precoding matrix indicated by the second TPMI field are the precoding matrix used for the first panel and the second panel. (Paragraph [0041], “the UE 120 may transmit the first PUSCH transmission occasion 320 using a first antenna panel 360, and the UE 120 may transmit the second PUSCH transmission occasion 330 using a second antenna panel 370.” And paragraph [0042], “For a codebook-based MIMO, a transmitted precoding matrix indicator (TPMI) index per antenna panel may be identified by DCI” The TPMI is identified for each panel and it is known in the art that the TPMI carries a precoding matrix.)
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.
Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan in view of Gao et al. (US 20240129932 A1)
Regarding claims 4 and 18 Yuan does not disclose:
wherein a rank of the first precoding matrix indicated by the first TPMI field is equal to the rank of the second precoding matrix indicated by the second TPMI field.
Gao discloses:
wherein a rank of the first precoding matrix indicated by the first TPMI field is equal to the rank of the second precoding matrix indicated by the second TPMI field. (Paragraph [0081], “the number of layers (e.g. TRI/RI) may be same for the first and second set of PUSCH transmissions/repetitions, and the number of layers may be indicated in the field “precoding information and number of layers” (or represented as the first TPMI/PMI/RI field) in DCI. In other words, the additional/second TPMI/PMI field may not indicate information of TM/RI).” The second TPMI may not indicate the layer information as the ranks are the same.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the DCI’s TPMI field of Yuan with the rank indication of Gao to concisely indicate the layers for each panel. One would have been motivated to do this to ensure coherent scheduling and lessen the overhead of the DCI.
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan in view of Gao in further view of Sun et al (US 20250023688 A1)
Regarding claims 5 and 19 Yuan discloses:
(NOTE: for the sake of prosecution the TPMI field is interpreted as being the first and second TPMI for the respective panels.)
and the first precoding matrix used for the first panel and the second precoding matrix used for the second panel are determined by the precoding matrix indicated by the TPMI field (Paragraph [0041], “the UE 120 may transmit the first PUSCH transmission occasion 320 using a first antenna panel 360, and the UE 120 may transmit the second PUSCH transmission occasion 330 using a second antenna panel 370.” And paragraph [0042], “For a codebook-based MIMO, a transmitted precoding matrix indicator (TPMI) index per antenna panel may be identified by DCI” The TPMI is identified for each panel and it is known in the art that the TPMI carries a precoding matrix.)
Yuan does not disclose
wherein: the DCI contains a transmit rank indicator (TRI) field; and a rank combination corresponding to the first panel and the second panel indicated by the TRI field.
Gao discloses:
wherein: the DCI contains a transmit rank indicator (TRI) field; (Paragraph [0081], “the number of layers (e.g. TRI/RI) may be same for the first and second set of PUSCH transmissions/repetitions, and the number of layers may be indicated in the field “precoding information and number of layers” (or represented as the first TPMI/PMI/RI field) in DCI.”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the DCI’s TPMI field of Yuan with the rank indication of Gao to concisely indicate the layers for each panel. One would have been motivated to do this to ensure coherent scheduling and lessen the overhead of the DCI.
Yuan and Gao does not disclose:
and a rank combination corresponding to the first panel and the second panel indicated by the TRI field.
Sun discloses:
and a rank combination corresponding to the first panel and the second panel indicated by the TRI field. (Paragraph [0068], “the total number of transmission layers is the sum of the number of transmission layers indicated by a plurality of TPMI fields/SRI fields associated with the plurality of target objects.” The TRI is equivalent to the number of layers.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combined teachings of Yuan and Gao’s TPMI field and TRI with Sun’s transmission layer/TRI. One would have been motivated to do this as the power scaling factor for PUSCH transmission is determined by the number of transmission (Sun [0071]).
Claims 9, 12-13 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan in view of Go et al. (US 20230189254 A1)
Regarding claims 9 and 22 Yuan discloses:
(NOTE: for the sake of prosecution the TPMI field is interpreted as being the first and second TPMI for the respective panels.)
the first precoding matrix used for the first panel and the second precoding matrix used for the second panel are determined by the precoding matrix indicated by the TPMI field (Paragraph [0041], “the UE 120 may transmit the first PUSCH transmission occasion 320 using a first antenna panel 360, and the UE 120 may transmit the second PUSCH transmission occasion 330 using a second antenna panel 370.” And paragraph [0042], “For a codebook-based MIMO, a transmitted precoding matrix indicator (TPMI) index per antenna panel may be identified by DCI” The TPMI is identified for each panel and it is known in the art that the TPMI carries a precoding matrix.)
Yuan does not disclose:
wherein: the DCI contains an antenna port(s) field;
and a first rank of the first precoding matrix used for the first panel and a second rank of the second precoding matrix used for the second panel indicated by the antenna port(s) field.
Go discloses:
wherein: the DCI contains an antenna port(s) field; (paragraph [0353], “DCI for PUSCH scheduling includes an antenna port field, therefore DMRS port(s) for PUSCH transmission in multiple PUSCH TOs may be indicated by a value of the corresponding antenna port field.”)
and a first rank of the first precoding matrix used for the first panel and a second rank of the second precoding matrix used for the second panel indicated by the antenna port(s) field. (Paragraph [0278], “rank information for a PUSCH scheduled by a base station is joint-encoded together with a PMI index (i.e., a rank and an PMI index are indicated together by one code point) in a transmit precoding matrix indicator (TPMI) field of DCI format 0_1.” And paragraph [0301], “A base station may indicate PUSCH DMRS ports for multiple PUSCHs through an (single) antenna ports field” And paragraph [0302], “ For example, it is assumed that dmrs-Type is 1 and the number of symbols of a frond-loaded DMRS is 1 in UL transmission through CP-OFDM as in the previous example. Here, if PUSCH TO 1 configured/indicated to a terminal is rank 1 and PUSCH TO 2 is rank 2, a base station may calculate a total number of layers 3 through a sum (i.e., rank of PUSCH TO 1, rank of PUSCH TO 2), and may indicate a value of an antenna ports field in the table corresponding to rank 3 (i.e., Table 11 below).”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Yuan’s DCI with Go’s antenna port rankings. One would have been motivated to do this to divide the “DMRS ports in a plurality of PUSCH TOs from the lowest port index.” (Go [0302]).
Regarding claim 12 Yuan does not disclose:
Wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to receive a max rank restriction to indicate a maximal total number of layers of the multi-panel simultaneous PUSCH transmission.
Go discloses:
Wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to receive a max rank restriction to indicate a maximal total number of layers of the multi-panel simultaneous PUSCH transmission. (Paragraph [0257], “Alternatively, for the number of layers shared by each TRP or PUSCH TO, the maximum ranks per TRP or per PUSCH TO may be limited (e.g., 2 ranks). In this case, an accurate rank and precoder may be indicated by configuring as many TRI+TPMI fields as the number of each PUSCH TO for scheduling in a DCI payload.”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the Yuan’s DCI field with the max rank of Go to concisely indicate the layers for each panel. One would have been motivated to do this to ensure coherent and flexible scheduling.
Regarding claim 13 Yuan does not disclose:
wherein, a rank of the precoding matrix indicated by the TPMI field is equal to a total number of layers of the multi-panel simultaneous PUSCH transmission, wherein the total number is equal to or smaller than the maximal total number.
Go discloses:
wherein, a rank of the precoding matrix indicated by the TPMI field is equal to a total number of layers of the multi-panel simultaneous PUSCH transmission, wherein the total number is equal to or smaller than the maximal total number. (Paragraph [0278], “rank information for a PUSCH scheduled by a base station is joint-encoded together with a PMI index (i.e., a rank and an PMI index are indicated together by one code point) in a transmit precoding matrix indicator (TPMI) field of DCI format 0_1.” And paragraph [0302], “ For example, it is assumed that dmrs-Type is 1 and the number of symbols of a frond-loaded DMRS is 1 in UL transmission through CP-OFDM as in the previous example. Here, if PUSCH TO 1 configured/indicated to a terminal is rank 1 and PUSCH TO 2 is rank 2, a base station may calculate a total number of layers 3 through a sum (i.e., rank of PUSCH TO 1, rank of PUSCH TO 2), and may indicate a value of an antenna ports field in the table corresponding to rank 3 (i.e., Table 11 below).”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the Yuan’s DCI field with the max rank of Go to concisely indicate the layers for each panel. One would have been motivated to do this to ensure flexible scheduling.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAM P CAO whose telephone number is (571)270-0614. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Jae Y Lee can be reached at 5712703936. 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.
/NAM P. CAO/Examiner, Art Unit 2479 /JAE Y LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2479
Prosecution Insights