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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the office action mailed 5/14/26 incorrectly interprets “at least one of” language to render the RS and PUSCH limitations optional because claims must be interpreted in light of the specification which consistently describes multiplexing of control/data sequences together with RS sequences within OTFDM symbols. Thus, applicant argues that previously cited Xiong et al. (US 11743006 B2) fails to disclose the claimed multiplexing of at least one of a PUCCH sequence, a PUSCH sequence, and an RS sequence. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., time multiplexing at least one reference sequence with at least one of control or data sequences) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant’s own dependent claims choose only two of the three sequences listed in the “at least one of” limitation of claim 1; for example, claim 2 eliminates PUSCH sequence as an option and claim 4 eliminates PUCCH sequence as an option. If applicant is implying that “at least of A, B and C” means at least one of A, at least one of B and at least one of C, applicants own dependent claims (for example claims 2 and 4) do not meet this interpretation. If dependent claims (for example claims 2 and 4), can exclude one of the three options listed in the “at least one of “ limitation of claim 1, then it is reasonable to conclude that two of the three options of claim 1 can also be excluded. Claim language in light of the specification does not preclude examiner’s interpretation of at least one of A, B and C. Thus, Xiong et al. (US 11743006 B2) does disclose claimed limitations and thus this office action is made final.
In light of the amendments to claims and the specification, objections to the specification and claims and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
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 1-8 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by previously cited Xiong et al. (US 11743006 B2), hereinafter, Xiong.
Regarding claim 1:
Xiong discloses a method for transmitting one or more PUCCH-PUSCH Orthogonal time frequency-division multiplexing (OTFDM) symbols, comprising: time-multiplexing, by one or more transmitters, at least one of a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) sequence, a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) sequence and a reference sequence (RS) to generate a multiplexed sequence (Column 2, lines 30-35; PUSCH and PUCCH are multiplexed in a time division manner (claimed time multiplexing of at least one of a PUCCH sequence and PUSCH sequence; column 2, lines 47-54; at least one transmitter is inherent to NR communication systems; see column 2, lines 15-35;it is pointed out that “at least one of” requires only one of PUCCH, PUSCH and RS; hence PUSCH and RS are optional, not required by limitation ); and
generating, by the one or more transmitters, one or more PUCCH-PUSCH OTFDM symbols by processing the multiplexed sequence (Column 2, lines 47-67; uplink transmission symbols multiplexed using TDM via and transmissted vua OFDM is claimed processing to generate one or more PUCCH-PUSCH OTFDM symbols by processing the multiplexed sequence).
Regarding claim 2:
Xiong discloses the method of claim 1 above and further discloses the method, wherein the time multiplexing is performed on at least one of the PUCCH sequence and the RS (Column 2, lines 30-35; Column 4, lines 47-60).
Regarding claim 3:
Xiong discloses the method of claim 2 above and further discloses the method, wherein the time multiplexed sequence is processed to generate one or more PUCCH OTFDM symbols (Column 2, lines 47-67).
Regarding claim 4:
Xiong discloses the method of claim 1 above and further discloses the method, wherein the time multiplexing is performed on at least one of the PUSCH sequence and the RS (Column 2, lines 30-35; Column 4, lines 47-60)
Regarding claim 5:
Xiong discloses the method of claim 4 above and further discloses the method, wherein the time multiplexed sequence is processed to generate one or more PUSCH OTFDM symbols (Column 2, lines 47-67).
Regarding claim 6:
Xiong discloses all limitations of claim 6 since claim 6 is drawn to an optional limitation of claim 1 and hence not required to be disclosed.
Regarding claim 7:
Xiong further discloses the method, wherein the PUCCH sequence comprises one of a format 0 sequence, format 1 sequence, and format 2 sequence (Column 2, lines 47-50).
Regarding claim 8:
Xiong discloses all limitations of claim 8 since claim 8 is drawn to an optional limitation of claim 1 and hence not required to be disclosed.
Regarding claim 12:
Xiong discloses the method, wherein the one or more transmitters is one of spatially multiplexed transmitters and uplink users (Column 8, lines 42-53; UEs for uplink communications are claimed uplink users).
Regarding claim 13:
Xiong discloses the method as claimed, wherein at least one control sequence is one of a pi/2 binary phase shift keying (BPSK) sequence, a BPSK sequence and a Quadrature Phase Shift Keying (QPSK) sequence (Column 28, lines 31-34).
Regarding claim 14:
Xiong discloses the method, wherein a control sequence includes HARQ acknowledgment, scheduling request (SR), and CSL (Column 2, lines 55-65).
Regarding claims 15-20:
Xiong discloses all the limitations of claims 15-20 Xiong since they are drawn to an optional limitation of claim 1 and hence not required to be disclosed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 -11 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:
Han et al. (US 20120076078 A1) discloses time domain multiplexing of RS and PUSCH.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINEETA S PANWALKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5pm. 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, David C. Payne can be reached at 571-272-3024. 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.
/VINEETA S PANWALKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights