DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/901735 filed on 09/30/2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
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 . 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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 5, 9, 13, 20 are objected to because of the following informality:
In this case, claims 4, 5, 9, 13, 20 recite limitation for performing certain step(s) only if a specific condition is satisfied (Conditional Statement). Such limitations are considered as optional limitations since they are not performed until specific conditions are met. Applicant should change the word “in a case” to “responsive to determining that…..” in order to alter an optional limitation to a required limitation. For the purpose of examination, claimed limitations will be considered as optional limitations since they are not performed until specific conditions are met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §101 which forms the basis for all patent-ineligible rejections set forth in this Office action:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The factual inquires set forth in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 134 (2014), that are applied for establishing a background for determining patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining whether the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
2A. Determining whether the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions).
2B. Determining whether the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. The rationale for this determination is explained below. Claim 1 recites: “A signal transmission method, comprising: determining a correspondence between U resource sets and Q objects according to transmitted signaling information, wherein an object of the Q objects is one of the following: a spatial transmit filtering parameter set, a quasi co-location reference signal set, a set of combinations of spatial transmit filtering parameters and quasi co-location reference signals, or a set of combinations of C reference signals over C links; and transmitting a channel or signal according to the correspondence; wherein U and Q are positive integers greater than or equal to 1, C is a positive integer greater than 1, and a resource in each of the U resource sets comprises at least one of a time domain resource, or a frequency domain resource”.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claim 1-8 are directed to a statutory category subject matter, reciting a method.
.
Step 2A: Judicial Exception
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim 1 recites “A signal transmission method, comprising: determining a correspondence between U resource sets and Q objects according to transmitted signaling information, wherein an object of the Q objects is one of the following: a spatial transmit filtering parameter set, a quasi co-location reference signal set, a set of combinations of spatial transmit filtering parameters and quasi co-location reference signals, or a set of combinations of C reference signals over C links; and transmitting a channel or signal according to the correspondence; wherein U and Q are positive integers greater than or equal to 1, C is a positive integer greater than 1, and a resource in each of the U resource sets comprises at least one of a time domain resource, or a frequency domain resource”.
The limitation as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the “determining” step in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally “determining a correspondence between U resource sets and Q objects according to transmitted signaling information, wherein an object of the Q objects is one of the following: a spatial transmit filtering parameter set, a quasi co-location reference signal set, a set of combinations of spatial transmit filtering parameters and quasi co-location reference signals, or a set of combinations of C reference signals over C links; and wherein U and Q are positive integers greater than or equal to 1, C is a positive integer greater than 1, and a resource in each of the U resource sets comprises at least one of a time domain resource, or a frequency domain resource”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. In addition, the limitation “transmitting a channel or signal according to the correspondence” are mere outputting data recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
Step 2B: Additional Steps/Elements Significantly More than the Judicial Exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained with respect to Step 2A, the limitation “transmitting a channel or signal according to the correspondence” are mere outputting data recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claims 2-8 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 2-8 merely contain additional determining step(s) that can be performed mentally or additional limitation defining some conditions. Claims 2-8 contain no additional steps or limitations, if being incorporated to claim 1, will overcome the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §101 which forms the basis for all patent-ineligible rejections set forth in this Office action:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The factual inquires set forth in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 134 (2014), that are applied for establishing a background for determining patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining whether the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
2A. Determining whether the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions).
2B. Determining whether the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. The rationale for this determination is explained below. Claim 9 recites: “A communication device, comprising a processor, a memory, and a communication bus; wherein the communication bus is configured to implement a communication connection between the processor and the memory; and the memory is configured to store at least one program, and when the at least one program is executed by the processor, the processor is configured to perform: determining a correspondence between U resource sets and Q objects according to transmitted signaling information, wherein an object of the Q objects is one of the following: a spatial transmit filtering parameter set, a quasi co-location reference signal set, a set of combinations of spatial transmit filtering parameters and quasi co-location reference signals, or a set of combinations of C reference signals over C links; and transmitting a channel or signal according to the correspondence; wherein U and Q are positive integers greater than or equal to 1, C is a positive integer greater than 1, and a resource in each of the U resource sets comprises at least one of a time domain resource, or a frequency domain resource”.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claim 9-16 are directed to a statutory category subject matter, reciting an apparatus.
.
Step 2A: Judicial Exception
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim 9 recites “A communication device, comprising a processor, a memory, and a communication bus; wherein the communication bus is configured to implement a communication connection between the processor and the memory; and the memory is configured to store at least one program, and when the at least one program is executed by the processor, the processor is configured to perform: determining a correspondence between U resource sets and Q objects according to transmitted signaling information, wherein an object of the Q objects is one of the following: a spatial transmit filtering parameter set, a quasi co-location reference signal set, a set of combinations of spatial transmit filtering parameters and quasi co-location reference signals, or a set of combinations of C reference signals over C links; and transmitting a channel or signal according to the correspondence; wherein U and Q are positive integers greater than or equal to 1, C is a positive integer greater than 1, and a resource in each of the U resource sets comprises at least one of a time domain resource, or a frequency domain resource”.
The limitation as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the “determining” step in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally “determining a correspondence between U resource sets and Q objects according to transmitted signaling information, wherein an object of the Q objects is one of the following: a spatial transmit filtering parameter set, a quasi co-location reference signal set, a set of combinations of spatial transmit filtering parameters and quasi co-location reference signals, or a set of combinations of C reference signals over C links; and; wherein U and Q are positive integers greater than or equal to 1, C is a positive integer greater than 1, and a resource in each of the U resource sets comprises at least one of a time domain resource, or a frequency domain resource”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. In addition, the limitation “transmitting a channel or signal according to the correspondence” are mere outputting data recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
In addition – using the “hardware” (a processor, memory, communication bus) to perform the “claimed limitations”. The hardware in the step is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing the claimed function, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Additional Steps/Elements Significantly More than the Judicial Exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained with respect to Step 2A, the limitation “transmitting a channel or signal according to the correspondence” are mere outputting data recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
Furthermore, the additional element of using the “hardware” (a processor, memory, communication bus) to perform the claimed limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 10-16 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 10-16 merely contain additional determining step(s) that can be performed mentally or additional limitation defining some conditions. Claims 10-16 contain no additional steps or limitations, if being incorporated to claim 9, will overcome the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §101 which forms the basis for all patent-ineligible rejections set forth in this Office action:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The factual inquires set forth in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 134 (2014), that are applied for establishing a background for determining patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining whether the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
2A. Determining whether the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions).
2B. Determining whether the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim(s) 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. The rationale for this determination is explained below. Representative claim 17 recites: “A computer-readable storage medium having at least one program stored thereon, wherein the at least one program is configured to, when executed by one or more processors, perform:…….”.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, signal per se. Claim 17 recites a computer-readable storage medium, however; Applicant’s specification does not limit the computer-readable storage medium to be only a non-transitory storage medium, thus; it could include “signal” as a storage medium. As such, claim 17 does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims do not include hardware elements in the body of the claim as required by MPEP 2106(I).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as non-statutory for the reason stated above. Claims 18-20 depend on claim 17; however, they do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve any of the non-statutory deficiencies of claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §101 which forms the basis for all patent-ineligible rejections set forth in this Office action:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The factual inquires set forth in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 134 (2014), that are applied for establishing a background for determining patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining whether the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
2A. Determining whether the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions).
2B. Determining whether the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. The rationale for this determination is explained below. Claim 20 recites: “At least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: generate a model for processing data in a wireless network comprising one or more interconnected wireless devices; partition the model into multiple layers; allocate one or more layers of the multiple layers of the partitioned model to a device of the one or more wireless devices interconnected to the wireless network; process the data partially by the one or more layers of the model by the allocated device; and transmit the one or more layers to the allocated device”.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claim 17 is directed to a non-statutory category subject matter, reciting a computer-readable storage medium (i.e. signal).
.
Step 2A: Judicial Exception
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim 17 recites “A computer-readable storage medium having at least one program stored thereon, wherein the at least one program is configured to, when executed by one or more processors, perform: determining a correspondence between U resource sets and Q objects according to transmitted signaling information, wherein an object of the Q objects is one of the following: a spatial transmit filtering parameter set, a quasi co-location reference signal set, a set of combinations of spatial transmit filtering parameters and quasi co-location reference signals, or a set of combinations of C reference signals over C links; and transmitting a channel or signal according to the correspondence; wherein U and Q are positive integers greater than or equal to 1, C is a positive integer greater than 1, and a resource in each of the U resource sets comprises at least one of a time domain resource, or a frequency domain resource”.
The limitation as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the “determining” step in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally “determining a correspondence between U resource sets and Q objects according to transmitted signaling information, wherein an object of the Q objects is one of the following: a spatial transmit filtering parameter set, a quasi co-location reference signal set, a set of combinations of spatial transmit filtering parameters and quasi co-location reference signals, or a set of combinations of C reference signals over C links; and; wherein U and Q are positive integers greater than or equal to 1, C is a positive integer greater than 1, and a resource in each of the U resource sets comprises at least one of a time domain resource, or a frequency domain resource”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. In addition, the limitation “transmitting a channel or signal according to the correspondence” are mere outputting data recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
In addition – using the “hardware” (a processor) to perform the “claimed limitations”. The hardware in the step is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing the claimed function, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Additional Steps/Elements Significantly More than the Judicial Exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained with respect to Step 2A, the limitation “transmitting a channel or signal according to the correspondence” are mere outputting data recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
Furthermore, the additional element of using the “hardware” (a processor) to perform the claimed limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 18-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 18-20 merely contain additional determining step(s) that can be performed mentally or additional limitation defining some conditions. Claims 18-20 contain no additional steps or limitations, if being incorporated to claim17, will overcome the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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)(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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gong et al. (US Patent Publication # 2020/0374814 A1.)
As per claim 1, Gong discloses “A signal transmission method, comprising:” [(par. 0089), A usage of the SRS resource/SRS resource set is described as follows: There is a correspondence between the usage of the SRS resource/SRS resource set and the transmission characteristic of the SRS resource/SRS resource set. For example, when the usage is to perform the beam management, at least two SRS resources in the SRS resource set may correspond to different transmit beams (namely, different spatial transmission filters) or different receive beams (namely, different receive spatial filters or receive non-quasi co-locations). When the usage is to perform the SRS antenna switching, at least two SRS resources in the SRS resource set are switched and sent on different antennas.] “determining a correspondence between U resource sets and Q objects according to transmitted signaling information, wherein an object of the Q objects is one of the following: a spatial transmit filtering parameter set, ;” [(par. 0089), A usage of the SRS resource/SRS resource set is described as follows: There is a correspondence between the usage of the SRS resource/SRS resource set and the transmission characteristic of the SRS resource/SRS resource set. For example, when the usage is to perform the beam management, at least two SRS resources in the SRS resource set may correspond to different transmit beams (namely, different spatial transmission filters) or different receive beams (namely, different receive spatial filters or receive non-quasi co-locations). When the usage is to perform the SRS antenna switching, at least two SRS resources in the SRS resource set are switched and sent on different antennas.] “and transmitting a channel or signal according to the correspondence;” [(par. 0099), n S230, SRSs carried in the plurality of SRS resources are simultaneously transmitted on the first time domain resource based on the transmit power of each port corresponding to each of the plurality of SRS resources.] “wherein U and Q are positive integers greater than or equal to 1, .” [(par. 0089), A usage of the SRS resource/SRS resource set is described as follows: There is a correspondence between the usage of the SRS resource/SRS resource set and the transmission characteristic of the SRS resource/SRS resource set. For example, when the usage is to perform the beam management, at least two SRS resources in the SRS resource set may correspond to different transmit beams (namely, different spatial transmission filters) or different receive beams (namely, different receive spatial filters or receive non-quasi co-locations). When the usage is to perform the SRS antenna switching, at least two SRS resources in the SRS resource set are switched and sent on different antennas. (par. 0097), Determine a quantity of ports corresponding to each of a plurality of SRS resources on a first time domain resource, where the plurality of SRS resources belong to a first SRS resource set.]
As per claim 2, Gong discloses “The signal transmission method of claim 1,” as [see rejection of claim 1.] “wherein the transmitted channel or signal satisfies at least one of the following: a spatial transmit filtering parameter of a first channel or signal on a resource belongs to a spatial filtering parameter set corresponding to the resource; ” [(par. 0089), A usage of the SRS resource/SRS resource set is described as follows: There is a correspondence between the usage of the SRS resource/SRS resource set and the transmission characteristic of the SRS resource/SRS resource set. For example, when the usage is to perform the beam management, at least two SRS resources in the SRS resource set may correspond to different transmit beams (namely, different spatial transmission filters) or different receive beams (namely, different receive spatial filters or receive non-quasi co-locations). When the usage is to perform the SRS antenna switching, at least two SRS resources in the SRS resource set are switched and sent on different antennas. (par. 0099), n S230, SRSs carried in the plurality of SRS resources are simultaneously transmitted on the first time domain resource based on the transmit power of each port corresponding to each of the plurality of SRS resources.]
As per claim 3, Gong discloses “The signal transmission method of claim 2,” as [see rejection of claim 2.] “wherein a time domain resource occupied by the first channel or signal overlaps with a time domain resource occupied by the second channel or signal, and the first channel or signal and the second channel or signal satisfy at least one of following characteristics: the first channel or signal and the second channel or signal are simultaneously sent by a first communication node; .” [(par. 0099), S230, SRSs carried in the plurality of SRS resources are simultaneously transmitted on the first time domain resource based on the transmit power of each port corresponding to each of the plurality of SRS resources.]
As per claim 4, Gong discloses “The signal transmission method of claim 1,” as [see rejection of claim 1.] “wherein in a case where the object of the Q objects comprises the set of combinations of C reference signals over C links, determining the correspondence between the U resource sets and the Q objects comprises: determining a correspondence between the U resource sets and Q reference signal combinations, wherein one of the Q reference signal combinations comprises a reference signal corresponding to each of the C links, and a combination of reference signals over the C links in one resource belongs to a set of combinations of reference signals over the C links corresponding to the one resource, wherein the C links comprise a first link between a first communication node and a second communication node and a second link between the first communication node and a third communication node” [(par. 0089), A usage of the SRS resource/SRS resource set is described as follows: There is a correspondence between the usage of the SRS resource/SRS resource set and the transmission characteristic of the SRS resource/SRS resource set. For example, when the usage is to perform the beam management, at least two SRS resources in the SRS resource set may correspond to different transmit beams (namely, different spatial transmission filters) or different receive beams (namely, different receive spatial filters or receive non-quasi co-locations). When the usage is to perform the SRS antenna switching, at least two SRS resources in the SRS resource set are switched and sent on different antennas. (par. 0099), S230, SRSs carried in the plurality of SRS resources are simultaneously transmitted on the first time domain resource based on the transmit power of each port corresponding to each of the plurality of SRS resources.]
As per claim 5, Gong discloses “The signal transmission method of claim 1,” as [see rejection of claim 1.] “wherein in a case where the object of the Q objects comprises the set of combinations of C reference signals over C links, determining the correspondence between the U resource sets and the Q objects comprises at least one of: determining a correspondence between the U resource sets and Q channel sounding reference signal (SRS) resource sets used for a code book; determining a correspondence between the U resource sets and Q SRS resource sets used for a non-code book; or ” [(par. 0089), A usage of the SRS resource/SRS resource set is described as follows: There is a correspondence between the usage of the SRS resource/SRS resource set and the transmission characteristic of the SRS resource/SRS resource set. For example, when the usage is to perform the beam management, at least two SRS resources in the SRS resource set may correspond to different transmit beams (namely, different spatial transmission filters) or different receive beams (namely, different receive spatial filters or receive non-quasi co-locations). When the usage is to perform the SRS antenna switching, at least two SRS resources in the SRS resource set are switched and sent on different antennas. (par. 0099), S230, SRSs carried in the plurality of SRS resources are simultaneously transmitted on the first time domain resource based on the transmit power of each port corresponding to each of the plurality of SRS resources. (par. 0079), When the SRS resource set is configured for the non-codebook-based uplink antenna selection transmission function, the SRS resource set may be used to indicate an antenna, and weight information of at least one of a precoder or a spatial transmission filter.]
As per claim 6, Gong discloses “The signal transmission method of claim 1,” as [see rejection of claim 1.] “wherein each of the U resource sets satisfies at least one of following characteristics: each of the U resource sets has a correspondence with one of the Q objects; each of the U resource sets has a correspondence with one of the Q frequency domain resource divisions; one channel or signal only falls within one of the U resource sets; one channel or signal is unable to fall within more than one of the U resource sets; or one set of spatial transmit filtering parameters corresponds to one reference signal” [(par. 0089), A usage of the SRS resource/SRS resource set is described as follows: There is a correspondence between the usage of the SRS resource/SRS resource set and the transmission characteristic of the SRS resource/SRS resource set. For example, when the usage is to perform the beam management, at least two SRS resources in the SRS resource set may correspond to different transmit beams (namely, different spatial transmission filters) or different receive beams (namely, different receive spatial filters or receive non-quasi co-locations). When the usage is to perform the SRS antenna switching, at least two SRS resources in the SRS resource set are switched and sent on different antennas. (par. 0099), S230, SRSs carried in the plurality of SRS resources are simultaneously transmitted on the first time domain resource based on the transmit power of each port corresponding to each of the plurality of SRS resources.]
As per claim 7, Gong discloses “The signal transmission method of claim 1,” as [see rejection of claim 1.] “wherein the object of the Q objects further comprise one of the following: a frequency domain resource division of the C links, a power parameter set, or a multiplexing mode set of the C links” [(par. 0098), S220: Determine, based on the quantity of ports corresponding to each of the plurality of SRS resources and transmit power corresponding, in a first time unit, to the first SRS resource set.]
As per claim 8, Gong discloses “The signal transmission method of claim 1,” as [see rejection of claim 1.] “wherein the object of the Q objects further comprise a multiplexing mode set of the C links; and wherein determining the correspondence between the U resource sets and the Q objects according to the transmitted signaling information comprises: determining a correspondence between the U resource sets and Q multiplexing mode sets, wherein one multiplexing mode in the Q multiplexing mode sets comprises the multiplexing mode set of the C links, and the multiplexing mode set of the C links in one resource belongs to one of the Q multiplexing mode sets corresponding to the one resource” [(par. 0089), A usage of the SRS resource/SRS resource set is described as follows: There is a correspondence between the usage of the SRS resource/SRS resource set and the transmission characteristic of the SRS resource/SRS resource set. For example, when the usage is to perform the beam management, at least two SRS resources in the SRS resource set may correspond to different transmit beams (namely, different spatial transmission filters) or different receive beams (namely, different receive spatial filters or receive non-quasi co-locations). When the usage is to perform the SRS antenna switching, at least two SRS resources in the SRS resource set are switched and sent on different antennas. (par. 0099), S230, SRSs carried in the plurality of SRS resources are simultaneously transmitted on the first time domain resource based on the transmit power of each port corresponding to each of the plurality of SRS resources.]
As per claims 9-16, as [see rejections of claims 1-8.]
As per claims 17-20, as [see rejections of claims 1-3 and 5.]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publications:
HAKOLA et al. (US 2020/0350971 A1) [(par. 0161), n more specific terms, according to exemplary embodiments in relation to multiple source RSs for PUCCH/PUCCH/SRS beam indication, the UE is (re-)configured with a beam indication table in higher layers for the UE e.g. based on conducted measurements on DL RSs and UL RSs. It is further assumed that the gNB (e.g. apparatus 10 above) operates using wider SS block beams and more narrow CSI-RS beams that may be QCLed with SS block beams to operate a hierarchical beam management and a training functionality. According to such detailed exemplary embodiments of the present invention, the UE is configured with two indicator states for PUCCH/PUSCH/SRS transmissions. The table can be provided for any of the channels or a common table for all or for a subset of channels like for PUCCH and PUSCH. A (Re-)Configuration may take place in RRC or RRC.sub.+ MAC CE levels, and L1 signaling would indicate when allocating UL signal (PUCCH/PUSCH/SRS) the used source RS for spatial transmit filter determination.]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANG HANG YEUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-7319. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rebecca Song can be reached on (571) 270-3667. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MANG HANG YEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2417
Prosecution Insights