DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed on: 11/13/2025.
Claims 31-34, 37, 39-44, 47, and 49-54 are pending for Examination.
Claims 31, 37, 41, 47, and 51 have been amended.
Claims 1-30, 35-36, 38, 45-46, and 48 have been cancelled to date.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to claims 31, 41, and 51-54, Applicant asserts that none of the references of the previous Office Action fairly teach/suggest at least the claim feature of a MAC RAR PDU with “…a padding field including the downlink user data or the scheduling information…,” wherein the RAR field that includes the TA command also includes one of the scheduling information and an uplink grant of resources for subsequent transmission; and the padding field includes the other of the scheduling information and the uplink grant.” Applicant’s Remarks at pp. 9-10. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The alternative language terms of the contested claim subject matter: “or,” “one of,” and “the other of,” only require examination of a single corresponding alternative for the reasons described below in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Limitations section. In this regard, the claim can be fairly interpreted to read, based on the usage of alternative claim terms, that a MAC RAR PDU has a padding field that includes scheduling information and the same padding field is recited to further include “the other of” the same scheduling information and the uplink grant. Thus, all that is required by the contested claim limitation(s), in terms of the padding field, is: a single padding field of a RAR PDU including “scheduling information,” under the Office’s BRI standard.
In this context, Choe teaches a MSG2 RAR PDU with DL data to the UE, i.e., dedicated NASInfo PDU with small DL data, as part of an early data transmission (EDT) during a RAR process, which can provide configuration/scheduling for feedback signaling relating to the receipt of the small DL data, i.e., an ACK/NACK for the data, at paras. [0161], [0166]-[0170], [0182] and S1219 of Fig. 12. Then Zhao-213 teaches a MAC PDU RAR with various fields including UE scheduling information and a padding field, at paras. [0170], [0110]-[0111],and MAC PDU of Fig. 3. Next, Babaei teaches the concept of including UE scheduling information within a padding field of a PDU, at paras. [0381] and [0383].
In this regard, because Choe already teaches providing scheduling information associated with received small DL data within a MSG2 RAR PDU, to indicate resources for a UE to submit subsequent HARQ feedback relating to the DL small data received, it would be obvious to alternatively include some scheduling information within a padding field of a same RAR PDU, where Zhao-213 teaches the padding field of a MAC RAR PDU relating to a SDT, and Babaei teaches including scheduling information within a padding field of a PDU. The motivation for doing so would be to utilize padding field space/bits of a PDU to include/convey some scheduling information/indication.
Applicant argues that “Babaei does not disclose padding field includes scheduling information,” and further asserts that Babaei relates to different or distinctive subject matter from that of Applicant’s invention. Applicants Remarks at p. 2. In this regard, the Examiner notes that all Babaei is relied upon for is to teach/suggest: including some information of a PDU padding field related to “scheduling.” Babaei describes PDU padding bits, which relate to scheduling information, i.e., an uplink grant (which is scheduling information), such that the padding bits can indicate the size of the scheduling information of an uplink grant, at paras. [0371], and [0381]-[0383]. In this regard, Babaei’s padding field bits can include scheduling related information with regards to the size information of an uplink grant.
In response to Applicant's argument that Babaei is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both the present application and Babaei relate to transmission of uplink grants/scheduling information via DCI (Applicant’s Fig. 6), and thus are in the same field of endeavor.
Moreover, in response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, i.e., application of Babaei alone, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references, i.e., the combination of Babaei with Zhao-794, Choe, Wong, and Zhao-213. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
For all of the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments asserted for each of independent claims 31, 41, and 51-54 are determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to the dependent claims, Applicant only argues these claims as being allowable based on their respective dependence from one of the above-indicated independent claims. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 12. As such, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the dependent claims are likewise determined not to be persuasive or have otherwise rendered moot, for the same reasons described above for the respective independent claims.
Claim Interpretation – Alternative Claim Language
The claims of the instant application are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the BRI of an alternative claim limitation or term can be determined to be the least-limiting interpretation, consistent with the specification. In this context, the term “or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to alternatively be: one or the other (i.e., A or B), but not both (i.e., not A and B). The term “and/or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to be: “and” or alternatively “or,” but not both, as this would not make sense. In this context, the forward-slash “/” is equivalent to the alternative “or.” Likewise, the alternative terms “at least one of,” “one or more of,” and the like, followed by multiple alternative claim limitations can be reasonably interpreted to be only “one of” a group of alternative claim limitations.
Prior art disclosing any one of multiple alternative claim limitations discloses matter within the scope of the claimed invention. "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See MPEP 2131.
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.
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 31-32, 34, 37, 39-42, 44, 47, and 49-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. 2014/0362794 A1, Zhao et al. (hereinafter “Zhao-794”) in view of US PG Pub 2021/0352617 A1, Choe et al. (hereinafter “Choe”), in further view of US PG Pub 2021/0259024 A1, Wong et al. (hereinafter “Wong”), in yet further view of US PG Pub. 2021/0058213 A1, Zhao et al. (hereinafter “Zhao-213”), in still further view of US PG Pub. 2018/0270698 A1, Babaei et al. (hereinafter “Babaei”).
With Respect to Claim 31, Zhao-794 teaches:
A method for a user equipment (UE) (UE 20 of Fig. 1) to receive downlink user data from a wireless network (para. [0003]; Wireless Base Stations (BS) 10 of Fig. 1 send DL data to an idle UE —a contention-free RA procedure can be utilized to reestablish synchronization prior to a DL data transmission or for incoming handover), the method comprising:
receiving, from a network node in the wireless network, a paging message indicating that downlink user data is available for the UE (para. [0026]; 30 of Fig. 2 —the preamble assignment message, i.e., sent by the RAN preamble assignment module 122 of Fig. 5, may indicate DL data arrival (as opposed to incoming handover) and may be sent via PDCCH —a message indicating DL data arrival is a paging message, as it notifies the idle UE of incoming data by requesting UL synchronization to enable the DL data transmission);
transmitting a random-access (RA) preamble to the network node (para. [0027]; 40 of Fig. 2 —the UE sends the CFRA preamble to the RAN); and
receiving, from the network node, a response to the RA preamble (para. [0027]; 50 of Fig. 2 —the RAN sends the UE the RA response), the response including:
a timing advance (TA) command for timing alignment of a subsequent transmission by the UE, and the downlink user data or scheduling information pertaining to the downlink user data (paras. [0026]-[0027] and [0035]; TA response update, C-RNTI, UL Grant, etc. 220 of Fig. 5 —the response conveys the timing alignment information or timing advance (TA) sync and/or UL Grant information required for respectively scheduling the DL data transfer or handover —the claim term “or” only requires examination on the merits of a single alternative —receiving “scheduling information” pertaining to a DL user data is interpreted to be equivalent to receiving timing alignment information for the receipt of data on the DL channel, para. [0027] —additionally, a C-RNTI, i.e., the cell temporary identifier, is also utilized in scheduling DL data as would be understood by those skilled in the art, para. [0035]; and block 220 of Fig. 5).
However, Zhao-794 does not explicitly teach:
wherein when the response includes the downlink user data, performing the subsequent transmission using the resources identified by an uplink grant; and wherein the subsequent transmission is a positive acknowledgement (ACK) or a negative acknowledgement (NAK) of the downlink user data, wherein the paging message includes a temporary identifier associated with the UE, and wherein the ACK or NAK of the downlink user data is transmitted together with the temporary identifier.
Choe does teach:
wherein when the response includes the downlink user data (paras: [0182]-[0183] and [0190]; S1219 of Fig. 12 —the RAR Msg 2 can comprise DL data in the form of a NAS PDU, performing the subsequent transmission using the resources identified by an uplink grant (paras: [0104], and [0182]-[0183] —the response, Msg 2, can include a second information element, requiring an ACK response to be sent to the network pertaining to a data transfer, i.e., the ULInformationTransfer); and
wherein the subsequent transmission is a positive acknowledgement (ACK) or a negative acknowledgement (NAK) of the downlink user data (paras: [0182]-[0183] —the response, Msg 2, includes second information element, requiring an ACK response to be sent to the network pertaining to the DL data).
wherein the paging message includes a temporary identifier associated with the UE (paras. [0096], [0154], and [0169] —a paging temporary identifier, i.e., a C-RNTI can be sent as part of a paging occasion to the UE as is clearly depicted in step S1207 of Fig. 12); and the ACK or NAK of the downlink user data is transmitted together with the temporary identifier (paras. [0097], [0105], [0155], [0163], and [0170]; —a corresponding temporary identifier of the UE, i.e., C-RNTI, can be sent to the network to identify the UE in a Msg 3 with the ACK).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhao-794’s CFRA procedure with the RAR response having early DL data and a receiving UE confirming receipt of data via HARQ feedback signaling, as taught by Choe.
The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate an early data transmission (EDT) during a RA procedure, as recognized by Choe (paras: [0105], [0154]-[0155], [0163], and [0169]-[0170]; and Fig. 12).
However, Zhao-794 in view of Choe does not explicitly teach:
receiving a response including a data indicator field having a value that indicates the presence of the downlink user data.
Wong does teach:
receiving a response including a data indicator field having a value that indicates the presence of the downlink user data (paras. [0090]-[0093] —a random access response (RAR) messaging can be modified to include a binary field indication, i.e., 0 or 1, which can indicate the presence of EDT data within the RAR).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhao-794 in view of Choe’s RAR response having early DL data to include an indication of the presence of the EDT within the RAR, as taught by Wong.
The motivation for doing so would have been to better indicate the presence of DL EDT data within a RAR during a RA procedure, as recognized by Wong (paras. [0090]-[0093]).
However, Zhao-794, in view of Choe and Wong do not explicitly teach:
a Media Access Control (MAC) RAR protocol data unit (PDU) including:
a MAC header; one or more RAR fields, one of which includes the TA command; and
a padding field including the downlink user data or the scheduling information,
where the RAR field includes a TA command and one of the scheduling information and an uplink grant or resources for the subsequent transmission
Zhao-213 does teach:
A MAC protocol data unit (PDU) (para. [0110]; MAC PDU of Fig. 3) including:
a MAC header (para. [0110]; MAC header of Fig. 3); one or more RAR fields (para. [0110]; MAC RAR 1-n of Fig. 3), one of which includes the TA command (para. [0111]; MAC RARs of Figs. 4 and 5, which include TA commands) and one of the scheduling information and an uplink grant of resources for the subsequent transmission (Figs. 4-5 w/UL Grant in TA field of RAR); and
a padding field including the downlink user data or the scheduling information (paras. [0114]-[0116]; MAC padding of Fig. 3 and Table1 —the padding RBs available have a designated bit size in CE mode A for data transmission —the transmission resource of data indicated by an UL grant can be included in the MAC PDU with the padding RB allocation (bit size), para. [0110]),
where the RAR field includes a TA command and one of the scheduling information and an uplink grant or resources for the subsequent transmission (Figs 4-5 w/ UL Grant in TA filed of RAR).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhao-794 in view of Choe and Wong’s CFRA procedure with MAC PDU structure and data allocation, as taught by Zhao-213.
The motivation for doing so would have been to designate known PDU data structures for carrying out the RA procedures, as recognized by Zhao-213 (paras. [0110]-[0114]; and Figs. 3-5).
However, Zhao-794 in view of Choe, Wong, and Zhao-213 do not explicitly teach:
a padding field that includes scheduling information.
Babaei does teach:
a padding field that includes scheduling information (paras. [0371], and [0381]-[0383] —the DCI/UL Grant can indicate scheduling resources in terms of padding bits corresponding to an grant of the DCI).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhao-794 in view of Choe, Wong, and Zhao-213’s MAC PDU structure and scheduling with a grant-based padding mechanism for scheduling DL data, as taught by Babaei.
The motivation for doing so would have been to perform PDU data scheduling for DL data within padding resources at the MAC level, as recognized by Babaei (paras. [0381] and [0383]).
With respect to Claim 32, Zhao-794 in view of Choe, Wong, Zhao-213, and Babaei teaches:
The method of claim 31, wherein one or more of the following applies:
the paging message identifies the RA preamble (Zhao-794: the preamble assignment message 30 is interpreted to be a RA paging message as it alerts a UE in idle mode of available data, and to switch to connected mode to receive the data); and
the RA preamble is a contention-free random access (CFRA) preamble (Zhao-794: paras. [0026] and [0034] —CFRA preamble assignment Pue1, in message 30 of Fig. 2 and block 200 of Fig. 5, identifies a contention-free random access preamble for the UE).
With respect to claim 34, Zhao-794 in view of Choe, Wong, Zhao-213, and Babaei teaches the method of claim 31.
However, Zhao-794 does not explicitly teach wherein when the response includes the downlink user data the response also includes the uplink grant of resources for the subsequent transmission.
Choe does teach:
when a response includes the downlink user data the response also includes the uplink grant of resources for the subsequent transmission (paras: [0104], [0182]-[0183] and [0190]; S1219 of Fig. 12 —the RAR Msg 2 can comprise DL data in the form of a NAS PDU and a second IE requiring an ACK response, i.e., an ULInformationTransfer IE);
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhao-794’s CFRA procedure with the RAR response having early DL data and a receiving UE confirming receipt of data via HARQ feedback signaling, as taught by Choe.
The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate an early data transmission (EDT) during a RA procedure, as recognized by Choe (paras: [0105], [0154]-[0155], [0163], and [0169]-[0170]; and Fig. 12).
With respect to claim 37, Zhao-794 in view of Choe, Wong, Zhao-213, and Babaei teaches the method of claim 31.
However, Zhao-794 does not explicitly teach:
wherein the RAR field that includes the TA command also includes the data indicator field.
Wong does teach:
that a RAR field that includes the TA command also includes the data indicator field (paras. [0085], and [0090]-[0093] —a random access response (RAR) messaging fields can be modified to include a binary field indication, i.e., 0 or 1, which can indicate the presence of EDT data).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhao-794’s RAR response having early DL data to include an indication of the presence of the EDT within the RAR, as taught by Wong.
The motivation for doing so would have been to better indicate the presence of DL EDT data within a RAR during a RA procedure, as recognized by Wong (paras. [0090]-[0093]).
With respect to Claim 39, Zhao-794 in view of Choe, Wong, Zhao-213, and Babaei teaches the method of claim 31.
However, Zhao-794 does not explicitly teach:
wherein the response is a Media Access Control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) including: a MAC header; and a first MAC control element (CE) that includes the TA command; and a MAC service data unit (SDU) including downlink user data.
Zhao-213 does teach:
a response that is a Media Access Control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) including: a MAC header (PDU MAC header of Fig. 3); and
a first MAC control element (CE) that includes the TA command (TA Command within RAR CEs of Figs. 4 and 5).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhao-794’s CFRA procedure with MAC PDU structure and data allocation, as taught by Zhao-213.
The motivation for doing so would have been to designate known PDU data structures for carrying out the RA procedures, as recognized by Zhao-213 (paras. [0110]-[0114]; and Figs. 3-5).
Zhao-794 further does not explicitly teach:
a MAC service data unit (SDU) including downlink user data.
Choe does teach:
a MAC service data unit (SDU) including downlink user data (paras: [0078]-[0081], and [0182]-[0183]; S1219 of Fig. 12 —the DL data transmitted in a PDU of the Msg2 corresponding to a L2 logical SDU mapping).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhao-794’s CFRA procedure with the RAR response having early DL data and a receiving UE confirming receipt of data via HARQ feedback signaling, as taught by Choe.
The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitate an early data transmission (EDT) during a RA procedure, as recognized by Choe (paras: [0105], [0154]-[0155], [0163], and [0169]-[0170]; and Fig. 12).
With respect to Claim 40, Zhao-794 in view of Choe, Wong, Zhao-213, and Babaei teaches the method of claim 39.
However, Zhao-794 does not explicitly teach:
wherein the MAC PDU includes a second MAC CE that includes an uplink grant of resources for the subsequent transmission by the UE.
Zhao-213 does teach:
a MAC PDU that includes a second MAC CE that includes an uplink grant of resources for a subsequent transmission by the UE (paras. [0110]-[0112]; second Uplink grant with in CE of RAR PDU of Figs. 4 and 5, corresponds to another CE data transmission).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhao-794’s CFRA procedure with MAC PDU structure and data allocation, as taught by Zhao-213.
The motivation for doing so would have been to designate known PDU data structures for carrying out the RA procedures, as recognized by Zhao-213 (paras. [0110]-[0114]; and Figs. 3-5).
With respect to Claim 41, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 31, except claim 41 is directed to a method for a network node in a wireless network in communication with a UE (Zhao-794: paras. [0024]-[0026] —network base station 10 in wireless communication with UE 20 of Fig. 1), as opposed to a method for a UE. As such, claim 41 is likewise rejected under §103 as being unpatentable over Zhao-794 in view of Choe, Wong, Zhao-213, and Babaei, based on the same rationale described above for claim 31.
With respect to Claim 42, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 32. As such, Claim 42 is likewise rejected under §103, as being unpatentable over Zhao-794 in view of Choe, Wong, Zhao-213, and Babaei based on the same rationale described above for claim 32.
With respect to Claim 44, this claim recites similar features to Claim 34. As such, Claim 44 is rejected under §103, as being unpatentable in view of Zhao-794 in view of Choe, Wong, Zhao-213, and Babaei based on the same rationale described above for claim 34.
With respect to Claim 47, this claim recites similar features to claim 37. As such, claim 47 is rejected under §103, as being unpatentable in view of Zhao-794 in view of Choe, Wong, Zhao-213, and Babaei based on the same rationale described above for claim 37.
With respect to Claim 49, this claim recites similar features to Claim 39. As such, Claim 49 is rejected under §103, as being unpatentable in view of Zhao-794 in view of Choe, Wong, Zhao-213, and Babaei based on the same rationale described above for claim 39.
With respect to Claim 50, this claim recites similar features to Claim 40. As such, Claim 50 is rejected under §103, as being unpatentable in view of Zhao-794 in view of Choe, Wong, Zhao-213, and Babaei based on the same rationale described above for claim 40.
With respect to Claim 51, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 31, except claim 51 is directed to a UE in a wireless network (Zhao-794: paras. [0024]-[0026] —UE 20 in communication with network base station 10 of Fig. 1), the UE comprising radio transceiver circuitry (Zhao-794: paras. [0040]-[0041]; transceiver circuitry 110) and processing circuitry (Zhao-794: paras. [0040]-[0041]; control module 120), as opposed to a method. As such, claim 51 is likewise rejected under §103, as being unpatentable over Zhao-794 in view of Choe, Wong, Zhao-213, and Babaei based on the same rationale described above for claim 31.
With respect to Claim 52, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 31, except claim 52 is directed to a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that are executable by processing circuitry of a user equipment (UE) (Zhao-794: paras. [0033], and [0040]-[0041]; software modules 122,124 —UE 20 in communication with network base station 10 of Fig. 1), as opposed to a method. As such, claim 52 is likewise rejected under §103, as being unpatentable over Zhao-794 in view of Choe, Wong, Zhao-213, and Babaei, based on the same rationale described above for claim 31.
With respect to Claim 53, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 31, except claim 53 is directed to a network node in a wireless network (Zhao-794: paras. [0024]-[0026] —network base station 10 in communication with UE 20 of Fig. 1), the network node comprising radio network interface circuitry (Zhao-794: paras. [0040]-[0041]; transceiver circuitry 110) and processing circuitry operatively coupled to the radio network interface circuitry (Zhao-794: paras. [0040]-[0041]; control module 120), as opposed to a method. As such, claim 53 is rejected under §103, as being unpatentable over Zhao-794 in view of Choe, Wong, Zhao-213, and Babaei based on the same rationale described above for claim 31.
With respect to Claim 54, this claim recites similar features to independent Claim 31, except Claim 54 is directed to a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that are executable by processing circuitry of a network node (Zhao-794: paras. [0033], and [0040]-[0041]; e.g., software modules 122,124 —network base station 10 in communication with UE 20 of Fig. 1), as opposed to a method. As such, Claim 54 is rejected under §103 as being unpatentable over Zhao-794 in view of Choe, Wong, Zhao-213, and Babaei based on the same rationale described above for claim 31.
Claims 33 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao-794 in view of Choe, Wong, Zhao-213, and Babaei, in further view of US PG Pub. 2018/0343673 A1, Chen et al. (hereinafter “Chen”).
With Respect to Claim 33, Zhao-794 in view of Choe, Wong, Zhao-213, and Babaei teaches the method of claim 31.
However, Zhao-794 in view of Choe, Wong, Zhao-213, and Babaei does not explicitly teach:
when the response includes the scheduling information, receiving the downlink user data on the identified scheduling resources.
Chen does teach:
a response including scheduling information and then receiving downlink user data on identified scheduling resources (paras. [0065]-[0066], [0380]-[0381]; DL data transfer of Fig. 11 —after contention-free scheduling, DL data is sent to the UE as scheduled/mapped).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhao-794 in view of Choe, Wong, Zhao-213, and Babaei’s CFRA procedure with DL data scheduling with scheduled DL data transmission and arrival at a UE, as taught by Chen.
The motivation for doing so would have been to actually send the scheduled contention-free DL data, as recognized by Chen (paras. [0380]-[0381]; and data transfer of Fig. 11).
With respect to Claim 43, this claim recites similar features to claim 33. As such, claim 43 is rejected under §103, as being unpatentable in view of Zhao-794 in view of Choe, Wong, Zhao-213, Babaei, and Chen based on the same rationale described above for claim 33.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure is as follows:
US PG Pub 2023/0262767 A1, Park: teaches DCI format padding bits used to include scheduling information indicators, such as an UL/SUL indicator (paras. [0082], and [0189]-[0192]; and UL/SUL indicator Table 4).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-6pm EST.
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, Moo Jeong can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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.
/Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418