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 Amendment
The Amendment filed on 5/27/26 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination. No amendment was submitted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/27/26, have been fully considered and entered. The rejections of claims 1-20 are supported in view of Yan and Ahn.
Applicant states Yan and Ahn, when taken alone or in combination, fail to disclose or suggest "transmitting, to the user equipment {UE}, a first resource grant corresponding to the first set of resources over a downlink control channel; and transmitting, to the UE, a second resource grant corresponding to the second set of resources over the downlink control channel," as recited in independent claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Yan, states that the base station grants/ notifies common E-DCH resources associated with first and second transmission time intervals {TTIs} to UE by using an acquisition indication channel { AICH}, so as for the UE to perform uplink transmission [0032]. Also, Yan mentions that TTIs coexist (]0007] and UE can use 2ms TTI or 10ms TTI according to the base station requirement [0026].
Ahn adds in by indicating that the base station controls a transmission of the mobile station by performing dynamic scheduling via an uplink scheduling command in downlink with respect to data packet transmission [0008], wherein uplink scheduling involves allocating resources reserved for special purpose packets being overlapped with resources for transmitting packets by the mobile station [0018]. It is known in the art that when dynamic scheduling is used, the base station may appropriately allocate resources through downlink control information {DCIs} carried on physical downlink control channels {PDCCH} (as in US 2017/0223725 A1 [0040]).
Also, Ahn shows that to increase uplink packet transmission efficiency without increasing downlink overhead, one takes into consideration the manner in which resources are allocated for transmitting packets of different purposes in different timings [0030].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to transmit resources grants including two overlapping resources sets according to different TTIs over the downlink control channels; thus enabling the increase of uplink packet transmission efficiency without increasing downlink overhead in case where UE needs resources for different services/ traffic types.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 claim at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (US 2015/0110060 A1), hereinafter referred to as Yan, in view of Ahn (US 2010/0208677 A1), hereinafter referred to as Ahn.
Regarding claim 1:
Yan discloses a method of wireless communication (method of selecting resources to which 10ms TTI and 2ms TTI correspond, for performing uplink transmission, para.6, lines 1-12), comprising:
allocating, for a user equipment (UE), a first set of resources for transmitting, according to a first transmission time interval {TTI}, a first communication (allocating, for UE, resources from first resource pool, e.g., first set of resources, to which first TTI corresponds, for {first} uplink transmission, e.g., first communication, para.32, lines 3-20);
allocating, for the UE, a second set of resources for transmitting, according to a second TTI, a second communication (allocating, for UE, resources to which second TTI corresponds, for {second} uplink transmission, [para.32, lines 23-24 and 27-30], wherein resources are in second resource pool to which second transmission time interval corresponds [para.8]), wherein the second TTI is smaller than the first TTI (wherein second TTI {2ms} is smaller that first TTI {10ms}, para.6, lines 1-10);
transmitting, to the UE, a first resource grant corresponding to the first set of resources (granting, to UE, number of resources, e.g., first set of resources, para.46, lines 1-6); and
transmitting, to the UE, a second resource grant corresponding to the second set of resources (granting, to UE, number of resources, e.g., second set of resources, para.46, lines 1-6).
Yan does not explicitly disclose transmitting the resource grant over a downlink control channel, and determining the second set of resources at least partially overlap the first set of resources.
Ahn, from the same field of endeavor, discloses transmitting the first and second resource grants over the downlink control channel (transmitting uplink packet scheduling command, e.g., resource grant, in downlink, whenever the uplink packet is transmitted [0003] or performing dynamic scheduling via an uplink scheduling command in downlink, e.g., downlink control channel, with respect to data packet transmission [0008], wherein uplink scheduling involves allocating resources reserved for special purpose packets being overlapped with resources for transmitting packets by the mobile station [0018]) and determining the second set of resources at least partially overlap the first set of resources (determining time-frequency resources for packet transmission partially collide with time-frequency resources for special purpose transmission [0071]).
Also, Ahn teaches information on resources being allocated for packets and special purpose packets transmissions are included in a resource allocation information [0018]. Furthermore, Ahn mentions that {uplink} packets are transmitted at different timings [0070]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the invention was filed to transmit, over the downlink control channel, first/ second resource grants corresponding to first/ second sets of resources allocated according to first/ second TTIs {10ms/ 2ms}, so as for the UE to transmit first/ second communications, wherein the second set of resources at least partially overlap the first set of resources in time and frequency; thus enabling the increase of uplink packet transmission efficiency without increasing downlink overhead for UE needing resources for different services/ traffic types – in case where the collision of time-frequency resources occurs between two uplink communications – Ahn [0030]
Regarding claim 7: is rejected for substantially identical reasons as applied to claim 1, except that claim 7 is in a device claim format, and wherein Yan [in claim 7] also discloses an apparatus for wireless communication (NodeB in Fig.3) comprising: a first/ second resource allocating component (adjustment processor, element 630 in Fig.6); and a communicating component (transmitter/ receiver, elements 620 and 610 in Fig.6).
Regarding claim 13: is rejected for substantially identical reasons as applied to claim 7.
Regarding claim 19: is rejected for substantially identical reasons as applied to claim 1, except that claim 19 is in a non-transitory computer-readable medium format.
Claims 2, 8, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan in view of Ahn, as applied to claims 1, 7, 13, and 19 above, respectively, and further in view of Martin et al. (US 8,432,864 B1), hereinafter referred to as Martin.
Regarding claim 2:
Yan in view of Ahn discloses all features of claim 1,
Yan in view of Ahn do not explicitly disclose indicating resource unavailability related to the first set of resources to a user equipment.
Martin, from the same field of endeavor, discloses indicating resource unavailability related to the first set of resources to a user equipment (upon determining availability of some resources being constrained, e.g., resource unavailability, providing an indicator to utilize a different resource, e.g., switching between a requested 2 ms TTI and a 10 ms TTI to be utilized by mobile terminal for communication, col.5, lines 36-46).
Thus, it would be obvious that information on resources unavailability should be indicated from the NodeB to the UE over a downlink control channel that is based on the second TTI – of which resources remain available at that time and an adjusted resource subset information should be transmitted to UE; for the UE to avoid transmission on unavailable resources – which results in reducing processing time in attempting to access unavailable resources.
Regarding claim 8: is rejected for substantially identical reasons as applied to claim 2 above, except that claim 8 is in a device claim format.
Regarding claim 14: is rejected for substantially identical reasons as applied to claim 2, except that claim 14 is in a device claim format.
Regarding claim 20: is rejected for substantially identical reasons as applied to claim 2, except that claim 20 is in a non-transitory computer-readable medium format.
Claims 3, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan in view of Ahn, as applied to claims 1, 7, and 13 above, respectively, and further in view of Zhou et al. (US 2014/0348141 A1), hereinafter referred to as Zhou.
Regarding claim 3:
Yan in view of Ahn discloses all features of claim 1,
Yan in view of Ahn does not explicitly disclose the allocation of the second set of resources is based at least in part on at least one of a modulation and coding scheme, a resource allocation size, or a number of layers of one or more channels corresponding to the first set of resources.
Zhou, from the same field of endeavor, discloses the allocation of the second set of resources is based at least in part on at least one of a resource allocation size, or a number of layers of one or more channels corresponding to the first set of resources, or a modulation and coding scheme (modulation modes/ encoding modes are adopted on same group of resources are different, so that mutual interference is also random, [para.138 and para.26] or different modulation modes are adopted for at least two group of resources among multiple resources [para.31]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the invention was filed to allocate the second set of resources to partially overlap the first set of resources based on modulation and coding scheme; thus improving the efficiency of transmitting control signaling by avoiding potential interference among transmissions as much as possible (see para.44 in Zhou).
Regarding claim 9: is rejected for substantially identical reasons as applied to claim 3, except that claim 9 is in a device claim format.
Regarding claim 15: is rejected for substantially identical reasons as applied to claim 9.
Claims 4-5, 10-11, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan in view of Ahn, as applied to claims 1, 7, and 13 above, respectively, and further in view of Xiong et al. (US 2016/0037514 A1), hereinafter referred to as Xiong.
Regarding claim 4:
Yan in view of Ahn discloses all features of claim 1.
Yan in view of Ahn does not disclose indicating, to a user equipment, whether to rate match around demodulation reference signals in the first set of resources based at least in part on determining whether the second set of resources overlap the first set of resources.
Xiong, from the same field of endeavor, teaches indicating, to a user equipment, whether to rate match around demodulation reference signals in the first set of resources based at least in part on determining whether the second set of resources overlap the first set of resources (resource element {RE} mapping for physical channel transmission are rate-matched around demodulation reference signal {DM-RS} when downlink physical channels transmissions, e.g., with its {first} set of resources, interfere or collide in MTC region, e.g., including second set of resources, para.55 in Xiong, or pg.11 in Prov’54).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the invention was filed that – in order to mitigate the interference, also employing a method of rate matching around demodulation reference signals in the first set of resources based at least in part on determining whether the second set of resources overlap the first set of resources; thus enabling the exclusion of resources associated with interfering reference signals when performing the data transmission (see para.38 in Xiong).
Regarding claim 5:
Yan in view of Ahn discloses all features of claim 1,
Yan in view of Ahn does not disclose allocating the second set of resources to avoid overlapping the first set of resources in a portion of the first set of resources.
Xiong, from the same field of endeavor, teaches allocating the second set of resources to avoid overlapping the first set of resources in a portion of the first set of resources corresponding to demodulation reference signal transmission (allocating MTC region with a subframe that is not used for other control signals using a plurality of subframes, para.40 and 67 in Xiong, or pg.5 in Prov’54).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the invention was filed that – in order to avoid the interference, allocating the second set of resources in a proper manner; thus increasing the overall throughput of the system by allowing correct transmission and reception of reference signals transmitted over appropriate resources, so as for UEs to schedule its needed operations.
Regarding claims 10-11: are rejected for substantially identical reasons as applied to claims 4-5, except that claims 10-11 are in a device claim format.
Regarding claims 16-17: are rejected for substantially identical reasons as applied to claims 4-5, except that claims 16-17 are in a device claim format.
Claims 6, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan in view of Ahn, as applied to claims 1, 7, and 13 above, respectively, and further in view of Heo et al. (US 2005/0073985 A1), hereinafter referred to as Heo.
Regarding claim 6:
Yan in view of Ahn discloses all features of claim 1,
Yan in view of Ahn does not explicitly disclose the second set of resources are allocated during the first communication transmission.
Heo, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the second set of resources are allocated during the first communication transmission (performs a change control to short TTI of 2 ms, when UE is performing an EUDCH service according to long TTI of 10 ms, para.82).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the invention was filed to allocate the second set of resources during the first communication transmission; thus ensuring the transmission of downlink communications of different types by continuing transferring downlink data of a different type to the UE over properly allocated resources without interruption.
Regarding claim 12: is rejected for substantially identical reasons as applied to claim 6, except that claim 12 is in a device claim format.
Regarding claim 18: is rejected for substantially identical reasons as applied to claim 6, except that claim 18 is in a device claim format.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMQUYEN THAI whose telephone number is (571)270-7245. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am-5:00pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and videoconferencing 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, Ayman A. Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. 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
/C.Q.T./
Patent Examiner, AU 2465
/AYMAN A ABAZA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights