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.
Claims 1-3 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: It is not clear what “a first field” and “a first higher layer parameter” in the “wherein” clause have to do with the claimed actions of receiving and transmitting. The applicant has not established any relationship between these claim terms and the positively claimed actions performed by the terminal or base station. It is not clear how defining “a PTRS port”, “a maximum number of DMRS ports”, and “a subcarrier index” affect the claimed actions of receiving and transmitting.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: in the “wherein” clause the applicant is claiming how “a PTRS port for the PTRS is determined” and how “a subcarrier index for the PTRS is determined” however these steps are disclosed as being performed by the terminal and not the base station. See paragraphs 332, 354-355, and 366-367. Therefore, the applicant is claiming steps performed by the terminal without claiming the actual terminal that is disclosed as performing these steps.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication number 2022/0007356 by Lee et al. in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0294588 by Harrison et al.
As to claim 1, Lee teaches a terminal apparatus comprising: a receiver configured to receive a PDCCH to which a DCI format indicating transmission of a PUSCH is mapped (paragraph 241); a transmitter configured to transmit the PUSCH, a DMRS for the PUSCH, and a PTRS for the PUSCH (paragraph 98) and, wherein a PTRS port for the PTRS is determined based on the a first field and one or multiple DMRS ports for the DMRS (paragraph 98), and a subcarrier index for the PTRS is determined based on whether the first higher layer parameter is configured or not (paragraph 41); however Lee does not explicitly teach a maximum number of DMRS ports for the DMRS is related to a first higher layer parameter.
Harrison teaches that a maximum number of DMRS ports for the DMRS could be related to a first higher layer parameter (paragraphs 166 and 224).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the data transmission art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Lee regarding managing PUSCH communications with the teachings of Harrison regarding a maximum number of DMRS ports because such a parameter allows for efficient management of the transmission antenna resources of a UE.
As to claim 2, Lee teaches a base station apparatus comprising: a transmitter configured to transmit a PDCCH to which a DCI format indicating transmission of a PUSCH is mapped (paragraph 241); and a receiver configured to receive the PUSCH, a DMRS for the PUSCH, and a PTRS for the PUSCH (paragraph 98), wherein a PTRS port for the PTRS is determined based on the a first field and one or multiple DMRS ports for the DMRS (paragraph 98), and a subcarrier index for the PTRS is determined based on whether the first higher layer parameter is configured or not (paragraph 41); however Lee does not explicitly teach a maximum number of DMRS ports for the DMRS is related to a first higher layer parameter.
Harrison teaches that a maximum number of DMRS ports for the DMRS could be related to a first higher layer parameter (paragraphs 166 and 224).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the data transmission art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Lee regarding managing PUSCH communications with the teachings of Harrison regarding a maximum number of DMRS ports because such a parameter allows for efficient management of the transmission antenna resources of a UE.
As to claim 3, it is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS B BLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-3893. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, Glenton Burgess can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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.
/DOUGLAS B BLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights