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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed on 10/03/2024 has a total of 20 claims pending in the application; there are 3 independent claims and 17 dependent claims, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 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 or amend these claims into their base claims, respectively.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-20 of copending Application No.18/896,215. This is a provisional double patenting rejection since the conflicting claims have not yet been patented.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the referenced copending application and would be covered by any patent granted on that copending application since the referenced copending application and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The dependent claims of the instant application contain similar limitations of the dependent claims of the co-pending application. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the language of the claims presented contain the same limitations claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the patented application to create the instant application.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented
Claims 1-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-20 of copending Application No.18/897,131. This is a provisional double patenting rejection since the conflicting claims have not yet been patented.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the referenced copending application and would be covered by any patent granted on that copending application since the referenced copending application and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The dependent claims of the instant application contain similar limitations of the dependent claims of the co-pending application. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the language of the claims presented contain the same limitations claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the patented application to create the instant application.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JANG et al. Publication No. (US 2024/0297764 A1) in view of Zewail et al. Publication No. (US 2024/0089151 A1)
Regarding claim 1, JANG teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a wireless device, downlink control information (DCI) (a UE receives, from a base station, first downlink control information (DCI) including a transmission configuration indicator (TCI) field, and a second DCI for scheduling at least one physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH), to receive PDSCHs based on two TCI states for multi-transmission reception points (m-TRPs), in case that the second DCI includes a TCI selection field including a first value, wherein at least one of the two TCI states is identified based on the TCI field [0012-13] FIG.5), wherein the DCI comprises an antenna port field indicating demodulation reference signal (DM-RS) ports within two code division multiplexing (CDM) groups (the DCI contains Antenna port field, which contains the number of CDM groups that may be fixed to one or may be one or more [0136] TCI state configuration that is valid when a target antenna port is a PDCCH DMRS [0163-168] FIG.7);
determining to apply two transmission configuration indication (TCI) states to a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) (the terminal may receive an SFN-transmitted PDSCH by using two different TCI states (TCI states #1 and #2) at a resource position based on the time and frequency resource allocation information (5-01 and 5-02) [0141-142] FIG.5) based on:
an absence of a TCI selection field in the DCI (the second DCI includes a TCI selection field including a first value, wherein at least one of the two TCI states is identified based on the TCI field [0637-638] FIG.11); or
a value, of a TCI selection field in the DCI, indicating to apply two TCI states; and receiving, based on the determining to apply two TCI states to the PDSCH (first DCI including a TCI field, and a second DCI for scheduling PDSCH based on two TCI states for m-TRPs, in case that the second DCI includes a TCI selection field including a first value, wherein at least one of the two TCI states is identified based on the TCI field [0637-638] FIG.11):
a phase-tracking reference signal (PT-RS) via a PT-RS port associated with a lowest indexed DM-RS port, among one or more first DM-RS ports, of the DM-RS ports, corresponding to a first TCI state of the two TCI states (DCI format may be used for scheduling a PUSCH, including Phase tracking reference signal (PTRS) and demodulation reference signal (DMRS) association of bits, or using beta offset indicator bits DMRS sequence initialization bit [0242-244] FIG.12); and
a PT-RS via a PT-RS port associated with a lowest indexed DM-RS port, among one or more second DM-RS ports, of the DM-RS ports, corresponding to a second TCI state of the two TCI states (DCI format used for scheduling a PUSCH, including Phase tracking reference signal (PTRS) and demodulation reference signal (DMRS) association of bits, or using beta offset indicator bits DMRS sequence initialization bit [0242-244] FIG.12)
JANG does not explicitly teach a first phase-tracking reference signal (PTRS) and a second phase-tracking reference signal.
Zewail teaches a first phase-tracking reference signal (PTRS) and a second phase-tracking reference signal (Zewail: The network node may transmit control information that identifies a first phase tracking reference signal (PTRS) port for one or more private messages and a second PTRS port for one or more common messages, where the PTRS ports may be the same or different [0019-21] FIG.3; the first PTRS port may be associated with a lowest demodulation reference signal (DMRS) port index of a first set of multiple DMRS port indices corresponding to the one or more private messages and identifying the first PTRS port based on the lowest DMRS port index [0030] the configuration may indicate a DMRS port that is shared between users for the common portion of the individual message and a DMRS port that is unique to the user for the private portion of the individual message, where the wireless device may determine a PTRS port for receiving or transmitting PTRSs based on a DMRS port index of the configured DMRS ports (e.g., a DMRS port with the lowest index) [0045-46] FIG.4)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified JANG by the teaching of Zewail to use a first and second PTRS signals in order for the UE to select the codeword with a lower index (e.g., an index of 0) and communicate with multiple TRPs using the indicated antenna ports to exchange uplink and downlink signaling (Zewail: [0103-105] FIG.3).
Regarding claim 2, JANG teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the DCI further comprises a TCI field that is different from the TCI selection field (receive, from the base station, PDSCHs based on two TCI states for multi-transmission reception points (m-TRPs), in case that the second DCI includes a TCI selection field including a first value, wherein at least one of the two TCI states is identified based on the TCI field [0642] FIG.3).
Regarding claims 3-6 (allowable subject matter). However, they are rejected since they are based on a rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 7, JANG teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the TCI selection field in the DCI comprises the value indicating to apply the two TCI states to the PDSCH (receive, from the base station, PDSCHs based on two TCI states for multi-transmission reception points (m-TRPs), in case that the second DCI includes a TCI selection field including a first value, wherein at least one of the two TCI states is identified based on the TCI field [0642] FIG.3).
Regarding claims 8-14, the independent claim and each dependent claim are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 1-7, where the difference used is the wordings of the claims were interchanged within the claim itself or some of the claims were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claims and interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to these claims. Therefore, these claims were rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Regarding claims 15-20, the independent claim and each dependent claim are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 1-7, where the difference used is the limitations were presented from the “base station” side and the wordings of the claims were interchanged within the claim itself or some of the claims were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claims and interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to these claims. Therefore, these claims were rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Conclusion
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDELNABI O MUSA whose telephone number is (571)270-1901, and email address is abdelnabi.musa@uspto.gov ‘preferred’. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Bates, can be reached on 571-2723980. 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.
/ABDELNABI O MUSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights