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 .
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The parent application is now a published patent. Therefore, it is recommended to change “18/540,459 filed December 14, 2023, which is” in ¶1 to “18/540,459 filed December 14, 2023 and issued as U.S. Patent No. 12,177,150 on December 24, 2024, which is”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,895,046 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-7 of the instant application merely broaden the scope of claims 1-18 of 11,895,046.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,177,150 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-7 of the instant application merely broaden the scope of claims 1-6 of 12,177,150.
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 1-7 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 and 5 recite the limitation “phase continuity” in lines 6 and 10 respectively. It is unclear whether phase continuity is performed cross slots, channel estimation is performed cross slots, an UL transmission is performed while maintaining phase continuity, or something else. For examining purposes, the examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claims 1 and 5 recites the limitation "same aggregated slots transmitted in the NTN communications" in lines 6-7 and 10-11 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-4 and 6-7 are also rejected since they are dependent upon rejected claims 1 and 5 respectively, as set forth above.
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soriaga et al. US 2019/0230656 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Soriaga”) in view of Hong US 2022/0007455 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Hong”).
As to claims 1 and 5, Soriaga teaches an apparatus (¶¶47 and 119; figures 1 and 18: UE/communications device), comprising:
a transceiver which, during operation, wirelessly communicates with network nodes of a wireless network (¶¶47-48 and 119; figures 1 and 18: transceiver for communicating with nodes in wireless network); and
a processor communicatively coupled to the transceiver such that, during operation, the processor performs operations comprising (¶119; figure 18: processor to perform processing functions):
receiving, via the transceiver, a demodulation reference signal (DMRS) time bundling configuration (¶¶89-90 and 96-98; figures 10B and 11: receive slot aggregation configuration for DMRS reception);
determining a duration interval of the DMRS time bundling configuration (¶¶89-90 and 96-98; figures 10B and 11: determine DMRS to be in each of the aggregated slots indicated by the slot aggregation configuration); and
performing phase continuity cross slots based on the duration interval (if performing channel estimation: ¶99; figure 11: receive DMRS in the aggregated slots to perform channel estimation; or if performing UL transmission while maintaining phase continuity: ¶¶89, 95, 105 and 113; figure 10A: perform UL DMRS transmission according to configuration indicating DMRS across the uplink aggregated slots are phase continuous),
Although Soriaga teaches “An apparatus…cross slots based on the duration interval,” Soriaga does not explicitly disclose “same aggregated slots transmitted in the NTN communications”.
However, Hong teaches same aggregated slots transmitted in the NTN communications (¶¶125, 171, 173, 181-182, 286-287, and 305: configured NTN transmission/reception across slots).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Soriaga by including “same aggregated slots transmitted in the NTN communications” as taught by Hong because it provides Soriaga’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of receiving explicit configuration for NTN configuration (Hong, ¶173).
As to claims 2 and 6, Soriaga in view of Hong teaches apparatus of Claim 5. Soriaga further teaches wherein, during operation, the processor further performs operations comprising:
inferring a first channel over which a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) symbol on an antenna port is conveyed from a second channel over which a DMRS symbol on the antenna port is conveyed when the PDSCH symbol and the DMRS symbol are within same resources as the PDSCH symbol in one slot in an event that the DMRS time bundling configuration is not configured (¶¶89-90 and 96-98; figures 10B and 11).
As to claims 3 and 7, Soriaga in view of Hong teaches apparatus of Claim 5. Soriaga further teaches wherein, during operation, the processor further performs operations comprising:
inferring a first channel over which a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) symbol on an antenna port is conveyed from a second channel over which a DMRS symbol on the antenna port is conveyed when the PDSCH symbol and the DMRS symbol are within same resources as the PDSCH symbol in consecutive slots in an event that the DMRS time bundling configuration is configured (¶¶89-90 and 96-98; figures 10B and 11).
As to claim 4, Soriaga in view of Hong teaches method of Claim 1. Soriaga further teaches wherein the receiving comprises receiving the DMRS time bundling configuration via an explicit signaling or an implicit signaling (¶¶89-90 and 96-98; figures 10B and 11).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wang et al., IEEE “The Evolution of LTE Physical Layer Control Channels”
Kim et al., US 2020/0260416 A1 – Method and Apparatus for Transmitting Downlink Control Channel in Wireless Communication System
Moon et al., US 2020/0367242 A1 – Method for Transmitting and Receiving Downlink Channel and Reference Signal in Communication System
Peng, US 2021/0007107 A1 – Downlink Control Information Transmission Method, Device and Network Equipment
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN T VAN ROIE whose telephone number is (571)270-0308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Ian N Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
/JUSTIN T VAN ROIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469