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 § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 13, 14, 21-23, 28, 30, 31, 40, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frenne et al. (WO 2021/090180 A1), hereinafter referred to as D1.
Regarding claims 1, 21, 40, and 41, D1 discloses PTRS to DMRS port association, which comprises:
in case a target layer mapping scheme corresponding to n code words CWs is used (Note, the claim recites the limitation “in case . . .” is considered a conditional limitation and is not given patentable weight. The conditional limitation is not a positive recitation and is not required to be performed by the claim, but merely that a condition may exist. Referring to Figures 1-3 and 6-8, Determining the PTRS port to DMRS port association comprising determining that the single PTRS port is associated with a lowest indexed DMRS port in the DMRS ports indicated in the DCI. See paragraphs 0033-0034. According to codeword to layer mapping. See paragraphs 0103-0105,), determining an association relationship between an uplink PTRS port and an uplink DMRS port based on downlink control information (DCI) (Referring to Figures 1-3 and 6-8, Determining the PTRS port to DMRS port association comprising determining that the single PTRS port is associated with a lowest indexed DMRS port in the DMRS ports indicated in the DCI. See paragraphs 0033-0034,),wherein a maximum number of uplink DMRS ports is 8, a value of n is 1 or 2, and the target layer mapping scheme is a layer mapping scheme of type 1 or a layer mapping scheme of type 2 (Referring to Figures 6-8, For Type 1 DMRS, ports 0, 1, 4, and 5 belong to fist a CDM group and ports 2, 3, 6, and 7 belong to a second DCM group, thereby comprising 8 DMRS ports. Utilizing codeword to layer mapping, CW0 . . . CW1, thereby comprising a plurality of codewords. See paragraphs 0103-0105. Codeword to Layer (CW2L) mapping, CW0 utilizing ports 0,1 and CW1 utilizing ports 2, 3, and 4; second codeword comprising a heavier load, corresponding to type 2. When a PDSCH is transmitted with two codewords, there is a rule that decides manner in which the layers of each codeword, CW0 and CW1, are mapped to the total number of MIMO layers. The rule is as follows: for rank 5: CW0 is mapped to layers 0 and 1 and CW1 is mapped to layers 2, 3, and 4. See paragraphs 0103-0105 and 0011.)
Regarding claims 2 and 22, D1 discloses wherein the 2 code words comprise a first code word and a second code word; the first code word corresponds to a number of first transmission layers after performing a layer mapping, and the second code word corresponds to a number of second transmission layers after performing the layer mapping; in case of the layer mapping scheme of type 1, a layer number difference between the number of the first transmission layers and the number of the second transmission layers is 0 or 1; and in case of the layer mapping scheme of type 2, a layer number difference between the number of the first transmission layers and the number of the second transmission layers is any value from 0 to 6 (Referring to Figures 6-8, For Type 1 DMRS, ports 0, 1, 4, and 5 belong to fist a CDM group and ports 2, 3, 6, and 7 belong to a second DCM group, thereby comprising 8 DMRS ports. Utilizing codeword to layer mapping, CW0 . . . CW1, thereby comprising a plurality of codewords. See paragraphs 0103-0105. Codeword to Layer (CW2L) mapping, CW0 utilizing ports 0,1 and CW1 utilizing ports 2, 3, and 4; second codeword comprising a heavier load, corresponding to type 2. When a PDSCH is transmitted with two codewords, there is a rule that decides manner in which the layers of each codeword, CW0 and CW1, are mapped to the total number of MIMO layers. The rule is as follows: for rank 5: CW0 is mapped to layers 0 and 1 and CW1 is mapped to layers 2, 3, and 4. See paragraphs 0103-0105 and 0011.)
Regarding claims 3 and 23, D1 disclose wherein in case of the layer mapping scheme of type 1, a sum of the number of the first transmission layers and the number of the second transmission layers is greater than 4 and less than or equal to 8; and in case of the layer mapping scheme of type 2, a sum of the number of the first transmission layers and the number of the second transmission layers is greater than 4 and less than or equal to 8; or, a sum of the number of the first transmission layers and the number of the second transmission layers is greater than 3 and less than or equal to 8; or, a sum of the first number of transmission layers and the second number of transmission layers is greater than 1 and less than or equal to 8 (Note, the claim recites the limitation “in case . . .” is considered a conditional limitation and is not given patentable weight. The conditional limitation is not a positive recitation and is not required to be performed by the claim, but merely that a condition may exist. Referring to Figures 6-8, Utilizing codeword to layer mapping, CW0 . . . CW1, thereby comprising a plurality of codewords. See paragraphs 0103-0105. Codeword to Layer (CW2L) mapping, CW0 utilizing ports 0,1 and CW1 utilizing ports 2, 3, and 4; second codeword comprising a heavier load, corresponding to type 2. When a PDSCH is transmitted with two codewords, there is a rule that decides manner in which the layers of each codeword, CW0 and CW1, are mapped to the total number of MIMO layers. The rule is as follows: for rank 5: CW0 is mapped to layers 0 and 1 and CW1 is mapped to layers 2, 3, and 4 (sum of layers is greater than 4 and less than or equal to 8). See paragraphs 0103-0105 and 0011.)
Regarding claims 13 and 30, D1 discloses wherein in case of the layer mapping scheme of type 1, a number of transmission layers corresponding to the 1 CW after performing a layer mapping is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 4; and in case of the layer mapping scheme of type 2, a number of transmission layers corresponding to the 1 CW after performing the layer mapping is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 4; or, a number of transmission layers corresponding to the 1 CW after performing the layer mapping is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 3; or, a number of transmission layers corresponding to the 1 CW after performing the layer mapping is 1 (Note, the claim recites the limitation “in case . . .” is considered a conditional limitation and is not given patentable weight. The conditional limitation is not a positive recitation and is not required to be performed by the claim, but merely that a condition may exist. Referring to Figures 6-8, Utilizing codeword to layer mapping, CW0 . . . CW1, thereby comprising a plurality of codewords. See paragraphs 0103-0105. Codeword to Layer (CW2L) mapping, CW0 utilizing ports 0,1 and CW1 utilizing ports 2, 3, and 4; second codeword comprising a heavier load, corresponding to type 2. When a PDSCH is transmitted with two codewords, there is a rule that decides manner in which the layers of each codeword, CW0 and CW1, are mapped to the total number of MIMO layers. The rule is as follows: for rank 5: CW0 is mapped to layers 0 and 1 and CW1 is mapped to layers 2, 3, and 4. See paragraphs 0103-0105 and 0011.)
Regarding claims 14 and 31, D1 discloses wherein in case a number of CWs is 1, determining an association relationship between an uplink PTRS port and an uplink DMRS port based on DCI comprises: in response to a number of the uplink PTRS ports being 1, determining an association relationship between one uplink DMRS port of the 8 uplink DMRS ports and the uplink PTRS port based on a first information field in the DCI; wherein the first information field comprises 3 bits (Note, the claim recites the limitation “in case . . .” is considered a conditional limitation and is not given patentable weight. The conditional limitation is not a positive recitation and is not required to be performed by the claim, but merely that a condition may exist. Therefore, the claim language is merely optional based on a conditional statement. The prior art is also capable of such a configuration; therefore, the claim limitation is taught.)
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) 4, 6, 7, 24, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of Liu et al. (US 2020/0244415 A1), hereinafter referred to as D3.
Regarding claims 4 and 24, the primary reference further teaches wherein in case a number of CWs is 2, the 8 uplink DMRS ports are divided into 2 DMRS port groups, and the 2 CWs correspond to the 2 DMRS port groups on a one-to-one basis; determining an association relationship between an uplink PTRS port and an uplink DMRS port based on DCI comprises: in response to a number of the uplink PTRS ports being 1, determining an association relationship between an uplink DMRS port in a DMRS port group corresponding to one of the CWs and the uplink PTRS port based on a first information field in the DCI (Referring to Figures 1-3 and 6-8, Determining the PTRS port to DMRS port association comprising determining that the single PTRS port is associated with a lowest indexed DMRS port in the DMRS ports indicated in the DCI. See paragraphs 0033-0034. For Type 1 DMRS, ports 0, 1, 4, and 5 belong to fist a CDM group and ports 2, 3, 6, and 7 belong to a second DCM group, thereby comprising 8 DMRS ports. Utilizing codeword to layer mapping, CW0 . . . CW1, thereby comprising a plurality of codewords. Codeword to Layer (CW2L) mapping, CW0 utilizing ports 0,1 and CW1 utilizing ports 2, 3, and 4; second codeword comprising a heavier load, corresponding to type 2. When a PDSCH is transmitted with two codewords, there is a rule that decides manner in which the layers of each codeword, CW0 and CW1, are mapped to the total number of MIMO layers. The rule is as follows: for rank 5: CW0 is mapped to layers 0 and 1 and CW1 is mapped to layers 2, 3, and 4. See paragraphs 0103-0105 and 0011.)
D1 does not disclose wherein the first information field comprises at most 3 bits, and the first information field is used for indicating at least one of: one uplink DMRS port in a DMRS port group corresponding to the CW with a higher modulation and coding strategy MCS; one uplink DMRS port in a DMRS port group with a maximum number of allocated ports in case the MCS of the 2 CWs is the same; one uplink DMRS port in a DMRS port group with a minimum number of allocated ports in case the MCS of the 2 CWs is the same; one uplink DMRS port in a DMRS port group corresponding to a first one of the 2 CWs in case the MCS of the 2 CWs is the same; one uplink DMRS port in a first DMRS port group corresponding to a first CW: or one uplink DMRS port in a second DMRS port group corresponding to a second C.
Note, the claim recites the limitation “in case . . .” is considered a conditional limitation and is not given patentable weight. The conditional limitation is not a positive recitation and is not required to be performed by the claim, but merely that a condition may exist. In addition, the limitation “is used for . . .” is an intended-use limitation and is not afforded patentable weight. An intended-use limitation is merely a recitation of some future purpose and not a positive recitation. The prior art is capable of such a configuration; therefore, teaches the claimed limitation. D3 teaches that max possible DMRS ports for a single UE is 8, then 3 bits may be utilized for signaling. See paragraphs 0105-0107.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the information signaling of D3 in the system of D1. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to do so to comply with well-known standards for transmitting configuration information to user terminals.
Regarding claims 6 and 26, D1 does not disclose wherein in case of the layer mapping scheme of type 1, the first information field comprises 2 bits; or in case of the layer mapping scheme of type 2, the first information field comprises at most 3 bits.
D3 teaches that max possible DMRS ports for a single UE is 8, then 3 bits may be utilized for signaling. See paragraphs 0105-0107.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the information signaling of D3 in the system of D1. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to do so to comply with well-known standards for transmitting configuration information to user terminals.
Regarding claims 7 and 27, the primary reference further teaches wherein in case a number of CWs is 2, the 8 uplink DMRS ports are divided into 2 DMRS port groups, and the 2 CWs correspond to the 2 DMRS port groups on a one-to-one basis; determining an association relationship between an uplink PTRS port and an uplink DMRS port based on DCI comprises: in response to a number of the uplink PTRS ports being 2, determining an association relationship between a first uplink DMRS port in a DMRS port group corresponding to one of the CWs and a first uplink PTRS port based on a first information field in the DCI (Referring to Figures 1-3 and 6-8, Determining the PTRS port to DMRS port association comprising determining that the single PTRS port is associated with a lowest indexed DMRS port in the DMRS ports indicated in the DCI. See paragraphs 0033-0034. For Type 1 DMRS, ports 0, 1, 4, and 5 belong to fist a CDM group and ports 2, 3, 6, and 7 belong to a second DCM group, thereby comprising 8 DMRS ports. Utilizing codeword to layer mapping, CW0 . . . CW1, thereby comprising a plurality of codewords. Codeword to Layer (CW2L) mapping, CW0 utilizing ports 0,1 and CW1 utilizing ports 2, 3, and 4; second codeword comprising a heavier load, corresponding to type 2. When a PDSCH is transmitted with two codewords, there is a rule that decides manner in which the layers of each codeword, CW0 and CW1, are mapped to the total number of MIMO layers. The rule is as follows: for rank 5: CW0 is mapped to layers 0 and 1 and CW1 is mapped to layers 2, 3, and 4. See paragraphs 0103-0105 and 0011.)
D1 does not disclose wherein the first information field comprises at most 3 bits, and in response to the number of the uplink PTRS ports being 2, the first information field is used for indicating at least one of: the first uplink DMRS port in the DMRS port group corresponding to the CW with a higher MCS; the first uplink DMRS port in the DMRS port group with a maximum number of allocated ports in case the MCS of the 2 CWs is the same; the first uplink DMRS port in the DMRS port group with a minimum number of allocated ports in case the MCS of the 2 CWs is the same; the first uplink DMRS port in the DMRS port group corresponding to a first one of the 2 CWs in case the MCS of the 2 CWs is the same; the first uplink DMRS port in a first DMRS port group corresponding to a first CW: or, the first uplink DMRS port in a second DMRS port group corresponding to a second CW.
Note, the claim recites the limitation “in case . . .” is considered a conditional limitation and is not given patentable weight. The conditional limitation is not a positive recitation and is not required to be performed by the claim, but merely that a condition may exist. In addition, the limitation “is used for . . .” is an intended-use limitation and is not afforded patentable weight. An intended-use limitation is merely a recitation of some future purpose and not a positive recitation. The prior art is capable of such a configuration; therefore, teaches the claimed limitation. D3 teaches that max possible DMRS ports for a single UE is 8, then 3 bits may be utilized for signaling. See paragraphs 0105-0107.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the information signaling of D3 in the system of D1. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to do so to comply with well-known standards for transmitting configuration information to user terminals.
Regarding claim 28, the primary reference further teaches wherein the first information field is used for indicating at least one of: the first uplink DMRS port in the DMRS port group corresponding to the CW with a higher MCS; indicating the first uplink DMRS port in the DMRS port group with a maximum number of allocated ports in case the MCS of the 2 CWs is the same; the first uplink DMRS port in the DMRS port group with a minimum number of allocated ports in case the MCS of the 2 CWs is the same; the first uplink DMRS port in the DMRS port group corresponding to a first one of the 2 CWs in case the MCS of the 2 CWs is the same; the first uplink DMRS port in a first DMRS port group corresponding to a first CW; or, the first uplink DMRS port in a second DMRS port group corresponding to a second CW (Note, the claim recites the limitation “in case . . .” is considered a conditional limitation and is not given patentable weight. The conditional limitation is not a positive recitation and is not required to be performed by the claim, but merely that a condition may exist. In addition, the limitation “is used for . . .” is an intended-use limitation and is not afforded patentable weight. An intended-use limitation is merely a recitation of some future purpose and not a positive recitation. The prior art is capable of such a configuration; therefore, teaches the claimed limitation.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gao et al. (US 2021/0160025 A1) - The first configuration indicates at least one of the following: a first density of the PTRS in time domain, a second density of the PTRS infrequency domain, first resource allocation for the PTRS in time domain, and second resource allocation for the PTRS in frequency domain. Information on the first configuration is transmitted to a terminal device.
Zhang et al. (US 2025/0226949 A1) - A first set of PTRS resources associated with a first set of DMRS ports and a second set of PTRS resources associated with a second set of DMRS ports; wherein the first set of PTRS resources are determined according to a first resource mapping scheme, and the second set of PTRS resources are determined according to a second resource mapping scheme.
Xi et al. (US 2021/0044467 A1) - Acquiring target DMRS ports corresponding to two PTRS ports respectively in a scenario where a terminal performs non-codebook based uplink transmission by using a CP-OFDM waveform; and transmitting corresponding PTRSs to a network device by using respective target DMRS ports.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONALD L MILLS whose telephone number is (571)272-3094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9-5 PM 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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at 571-272-3927. 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.
DONALD L. MILLS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2462
/Donald L Mills/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights