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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: DEVICE AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING A MAPPING PATTERN OF AN UL PT-RS
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The term “circuitry” is structure. None of the instant claims invoke U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “receive a PUCCH” should be “receive a PDCCH.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “D1”: 3GPP; TSG RAN; NR; Physical layer procedures for data (Release 16), 3GPP TS 38.214 V16.8.0, 2022.01.05 [provided by Applicant] in view of “D2”: 3GPP; TSG RAN; NR; Multiplexing and channel coding (Release 16), 3GPP TS 38.212 V16.8.0, 2022.01.05, pp.92-112, Page97 Lines16-27, Page Tables 7.3.1.1.2-25, 7.3.1.1.2-26 [provided by Applicant].
As to claim 1, D1 discloses a terminal device (6.2.3, UE) comprising: reception circuitry (implicit) configured to receive a PDCCH (see Section 6.2.3, PUSCH scheduled by PDCCH); and transmission circuitry (implicit) configured to transmit one or more PUSCHs based on the PDCCH and UL PT-RS (Section 6.2.3, PUSCH transmissions scheduled by DCI format 0_0 or format 0_1; PT-RS is only present on PUSCH scheduled by PDCCH); and determination circuitry (implicit) configured to determine a mapping pattern of the UL PT-RS within the one or more PUSCHs based on a first DCI field (page 147, corresponding to PTRS-DMRS association field) in the PDCCH (see page 147, lines 10-16 - For codebook or non-codebook based UL transmission, the association between UL PT-RS port(s) and DM-RS port(s) is signaled by PTRS-DMRS association field in DCI format 0_1 and DCI format 0_2. For a PUSCH corresponding to a configured grant Type 1 transmission, the UE may assume the association between UL PT-RS port(s) and DM-RS port(s) defined by value 0 in Table 7.3.1.1.2-25 or value "00" in Table 7.3.1.1.1.2-26 described in Clause 7.3.1 of [5, TS38.212].).
D1 does not disclose the determination circuitry configured to determine the mapping pattern; wherein if the first DCI field is set to a first value, a first mapping pattern is applied for the UL PT-RS; and if the first DCI field is set to a second value, a second mapping pattern is applied for the UL PT-RS.
However, D2 discloses determination circuitry [implicit] configured to determine the mapping pattern; wherein if the first DCI field (i.e. corresponding to PTRS-DMRS association) is set to a first value, a first mapping pattern is applied for the UL PT-RS; and if the first DCI field is set to a second value, a second mapping pattern is applied for the UL PT-RS (see page 97, lines 16-27, and page 108 Table 7.3.1.1.2-25 and Table 7.3.1.1.2-26, showing different DMRS ports scheduled (i.e. mapping patterns) based on different values of bits). On page 147, lines 10-14 of D1, "PTRS-DMRS association field" in D1 refers to D2. Therefore, a person skilled in the art would easily conceive the idea of applying the first DCI field disclosed in D2 to the invention of D1.
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the DMRS of D2 into the
invention of D1. The suggestion/motivation would have been for Multiplexing and channel coding in NR (D2, page 1). Including the DMRS of D2 into the
invention of D1 was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of D2.
As to claim 2, see similar rejection to claim 1. The apparatus teaches the method.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200052930 A1 at para. 0134 discloses: When a UE detects an xPDCCH having the DCI format A1 or A2 in its intended subframe n, the UE transmits an UL PTRS in a subframe n+4+m+1 using one or two PTRS antenna ports identical with an allocated DM-RS antenna port indicated in DCI other than the following conditions (condition 1 and condition 2). [0135] Condition 1: if the dual PTRS field of detected DCI is set to ‘1’ and the number of DM-RS ports allocated to an xPUSCH is ‘1’, a UE transmits an UL PTRS in a subframe n+4+m+1 using the same PTRS port as an additional PTRS antenna port having the same subcarrier position as an allocated DM-RS antenna port and specific PTRS antenna port indicated in DCI. [0136] Condition 2: a relative transmission power ratio between a PTRS and an xPUSCH is determined by a transmission method defined by Table 3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR J GHOWRWAL whose telephone number is (571)270-5691. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, ASAD NAWAZ can be reached at 571-272-3988. 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.
/OMAR J GHOWRWAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights