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 .
Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed 9/19/2024 is acknowledged.
Claims 1,3,7,8,15,16,19-23,28,29,36, and 40-43 are amended.
Claims 4-6,9-14,17,18,24-27,30-35,38, and 39 are cancelled.
Claims 1-3,7,15,16,19-23,28,29,36,37, and 40-43 are pending.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3,22,23, and 43 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,3, and 4 of copending Application No. 18/851641 (reference application referred to as A641). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Re claim 1: Claim 1 merely broadens the scope of claim 1 of A641. It is well settled that broadening the scope of claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the narrower issued claims. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) and In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Re claim 2: Claim 2 is disclosed in claim 4 of A641.
Re claim 3: Claim 3 is disclosed in claim 1 of A641.
Re claim 22: Claim 22 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1 from the perspective of the network device.
Re claim 23: Claim 23 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 43: Claim 43 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, “the 8 uplink DMRS” should be “8 uplink DMRS”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, “information field the downlink” should be “information field in the downlink”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, “the 8 uplink DMRS” should be “8 uplink DMRS”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1,2,7,15,1619,21,22,28,36,37,40,42, and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Khoshnevisan (US 20230085874).
Re claim 1:
Khoshnevisan discloses a method for determining an association of an uplink PTRS port, performed by a terminal, comprising: determining an association between an uplink phase tracking reference signal (PTRS) port and an uplink demodulation reference signal (DMRS) port based on downlink control information (DCI) (Para.[0043] FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating an example 300 of association of PTRS ports and DMRS ports for multi-beam uplink repetitions and Para.[0046] If the UE identifies a single PTRS port (e.g., PTRS port 0), the DCI may indicate an index value of mapping 305 to identify a DMRS port associated with the PTRS port (where the first scheduled DMRS port may refer to a DMRS port mapped to a first layer that is to be transmitted, and so forth). If the UE identifies multiple PTRS ports (e.g., PTRS port 0 and PTRS port 1), the DCI may indicate two index values of mapping 310 to identify respective DMRS ports associated with the multiple PTRS ports).
Re claim 2:
Khoshnevisan discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein determining the association between the uplink PTRS port and the uplink DMRS port based on the downlink control information comprises: in response to a number of the uplink PTRS ports being 1, determining the association between the uplink PTRS port and the uplink DMRS port based on a first information field in the downlink control information (Para.[0046] If the UE identifies a single PTRS port (e.g., PTRS port 0), the DCI may indicate an index value of mapping 305 to identify a DMRS port associated with the PTRS port (where the first scheduled DMRS port may refer to a DMRS port mapped to a first layer that is to be transmitted, and so forth)).
Re claim 7:
Khoshnevisan discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein determining the association between a uplink PTRS port and the uplink DMRS port based on the downlink control information comprises: in response to the number of the uplink PTRS ports being 2, determining the association between the uplink PTRS port and the uplink DMRS port based on a first information field in the downlink control information (Para.[0046] If the UE identifies multiple PTRS ports (e.g., PTRS port 0 and PTRS port 1), the DCI may indicate two index values of mapping 310 to identify respective DMRS ports associated with the multiple PTRS ports);
wherein the first information field comprises 4 bits (Para.[0056] In some aspects, the PTRS-DMRS association field may be allocated four bits of the DCI).
Re claim 15:
Khoshnevisan discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein determining the association between the uplink PTRS port and the uplink DMRS port based on the downlink control information comprises: in response to a number of the uplink PTRS ports being 2, determining an uplink DMRS port associated with a first uplink PTRS port based on a codepoint of a first information field in the downlink control information and a first association; and determining an uplink DMRS port associated with a second uplink PTRS port based on the codepoint of the first information field and a second association; wherein the first association refers to an association between the first uplink PTRS port corresponding to the codepoint of the first information field and the uplink DMRS port, and the second association refers to an association between the second uplink PTRS port corresponding to the codepoint of the first information field and the uplink DMRS port (Para.[0046] If the UE identifies multiple PTRS ports (e.g., PTRS port 0 and PTRS port 1), the DCI may indicate two index values of mapping 310 to identify respective DMRS ports associated with the multiple PTRS ports and Para.[0047] As shown in mapping 310, a first index value (i.e., a most-significant bit (MSB)) may identify a DMRS port of a set of DMRS ports that share a first PTRS port (e.g., PTRS port 0), and a second index value (i.e., a least-significant bit (LSB)) may identify a DMRS port of a set of DMRS ports that share a second PTRS port (e.g., PTRS port 1)…In codebook-based uplink, a first set of antennas (e.g., antennas 0 and 2) of a precoding matrix (identified by a TPMI and an indicated quantity of layers) may be associated with a first PTRS port (e.g., PTRS port 0) and a second set of antennas (e.g., antennas 1 and 3) of the precoding matrix may be associated with a second PTRS port (e.g., PTRS port 1)).
Re claim 16:
Khoshnevisan discloses the method according to claim 15, wherein: the first association and the second association are defined by a network device; or, the first association and the second association are pre-defined (Para.[0056] In some aspects, the PTRS-DMRS association field may be allocated four bits of the DCI and Para.[0052] the BS 110 may transmit, and the UE 120 may receive, DCI).
Re claim 19:
Khoshnevisan discloses the method according to claim 1,wherein the first information field the downlink control information is a PTRS-DMRS association field (Para.[0056] In some aspects, the PTRS-DMRS association field may be allocated four bits of the DCI).
Re claim 21:
Khoshnevisan discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the association between the uplink PTRS port and the uplink DMRS port based on the downlink control information comprises: in a scenario of codebook (CB)-based physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission, determining the association between the uplink PTRS port and the uplink DMRS port based on the downlink control information; or, in a scenario of non-codebook (NCB)-based PUSCH transmission, determining the association between the uplink PTRS port and the uplink DMRS port based on the downlink control information (Para.[0052] The DCI may schedule multiple repetitions (i.e., PUSCH transmission occasions) of an uplink communication of the UE 120 and Para.[0046] In non-codebook-based uplink, the UE may identify one or more PTRS ports based at least in part on a sounding reference signal (SRS) resource indicator (SRI). For example, an SRI may identify one or more multiple SRS resources, and each SRS resource may be configured with a particular PTRS port. In codebook-based uplink, the UE may identify one or more PTRS ports based at least in part on a transmit precoding matrix indicator (TPMI) and an indicated quantity of layers, as described below. Moreover, the UE may be configured to use a particular maximum quantity of PTRS ports, which may be one or two. The UE may be configured to use one PTRS port when the UE is fully coherent. The UE may be configured to use at most two PTRS ports when the UE is non-coherent or partially coherent (e.g., the UE may be configured to use two PTRS ports when a transmission uses a cyclic prefix orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (CP-OFDM) waveform).);
or, in a scenario of scheduling-free configured grant (CG) PUSCH transmission, determining the association between the uplink PTRS port and the uplink DMRS port based on the downlink control information (alternatives have been addressed).
Re claim 22: Claim 22 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1 from the perspective of the network device.
Re claim 28: Claim 28 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7.
Re claim 36: Claim 36 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 15.
Re claim 37: Claim 37 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 16.
Re claim 40: Claim 40 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 19.
Re claim 42: Claim 42 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 21.
Re claim 43: Claim 43 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1. Khoshnevisan further discloses a processor; and a transceiver coupled to the processor (Fig. 2).
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.
Claim(s) 3,8,20,23,29, and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan (US 20230085874) in view of Lim (US 20250167954).
Re claim 3:
As discussed above, Khoshnevisan meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Khoshnevisan does not explicitly disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein a maximum number of uplink DMRS ports allocated to the terminal is 8, and a number of uplink PTRS ports comprises 1 or 2.
Lim discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a maximum number of uplink DMRS ports allocated to the terminal is 8, and a number of uplink PTRS ports comprises 1 or 2 (Para.[0393] a maximum of 8 layers (e.g., DMRS ports)…Table 37 shows the meaning of code points for interpreting the PTRS-DMRS association field that may be supported when the number of supported PTRS ports is 1 and support for a maximum of 8 layers is possible).
Khoshnevisan and Lim are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khoshnevisan to include a maximum of 8 DMRS ports as taught by Lim in order to effectively provide service in a wireless communication system (Lim Para.[0014]).
Re claim 8:
As discussed above, Khoshnevisan meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Khoshnevisan does not explicitly disclose the method according to claim 7, wherein the 8 uplink DMRS ports are divided into two DMRS port groups, each of the DMRS port groups comprising 4 uplink DMRS ports; a value of 2 bits of most significant bits (MSBs) in the 4 bits indicates one uplink DMRS port associated with a first uplink PTRS port in a first DMRS port group; and a value of 2 bits of least significant bits (LSBs) in the 4 bits indicates one uplink DMRS port associated with a second uplink PTRS port in a second DMRS port group.
Lim discloses the method according to claim 7, wherein the 8 uplink DMRS ports are divided into two DMRS port groups, each of the DMRS port groups comprising 4 uplink DMRS ports; a value of 2 bits of most significant bits (MSBs) in the 4 bits indicates one uplink DMRS port associated with a first uplink PTRS port in a first DMRS port group; and a value of 2 bits of least significant bits (LSBs) in the 4 bits indicates one uplink DMRS port associated with a second uplink PTRS port in a second DMRS port group (Table 38).
Khoshnevisan and Lim are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khoshnevisan to include a maximum of 8 DMRS ports as taught by Lim in order to effectively provide service in a wireless communication system (Lim Para.[0014]).
Re claim 20:
As discussed above, Khoshnevisan meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Khoshnevisan does not explicitly disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein a number of uplink PTRS ports is configured by higher layer signaling, and a number of uplink PT-RS ports sent by the terminal is consistent with the configured number of uplink PT-RS ports.
Lim discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a number of uplink PTRS ports is configured by higher layer signaling, and a number of uplink PT-RS ports sent by the terminal is consistent with the configured number of uplink PT-RS ports (Para.[0258] The indicated PTRS-DMRS association field of 2 bits may be applied to Table 34-1 or 34-2 below according to the maximum number of ports of PTRS configured by maxNrofPorts in the higher layer parameter PTRS-UplinkConfig. When the maximum number of PTRS ports is 1, the UE may determine the association between the PTRS and DMRS by Table 34-1 and the 2 bits indicated as the PTRS-DMRS association field, and may transmit the PTRS according to the determined association. When the maximum number of PTRS ports is 2, the UE may determine the association between the PTRS and DMRS by Table 34-2 and the 2 bits indicated as the PTRS-DMRS association field, and may transmit the PTRS according to the determined association).
Khoshnevisan and Lim are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khoshnevisan to include a maximum of 8 DMRS ports as taught by Lim in order to effectively provide service in a wireless communication system (Lim Para.[0014]).
Re claim 23: Claim 23 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 29: Claim 29 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 8.
Re claim 41: Claim 41 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhang (US 20250226949) shows an association between DMRS ports and PTRS ports.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD SAJID ADHAMI whose telephone number is (571)272-8615. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 PM.
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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571) 272-8586. 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.
/MOHAMMAD S ADHAMI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights