DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response filed 3/31/2026 is acknowledged.
No claims have been amended, cancelled, or added.
Claims 1-20 remain pending.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US20200267643), hereafter Wu, in view of Lee et al. (US20210321446A1), hereafter Lee.
Regarding claims 1 and 11,
Wu discloses a communication apparatus (Fig. 2, apparatus 220) comprising at least one processor (Fig. 2, processor 222); and a memory (Fig. 2, memory 224) storing programming instructions for execution by the at least one processor, the programming instructions instructing the communication apparatus to perform a communication a method (Fig. 4; paragraph 36-37) comprising sending downlink control information to a terminal device (PDCCH/DCI; paragraph 19-20), wherein the downlink control information comprises indication information, and the indication information indicates one of at least two first minimum applicable slot offset (minimum KO) that is of a physical downlink shared channel and that is configured for a downlink bandwidth part (BWP) of the terminal device, and the indication information indicates one of at least two second minimum applicable slot offset (minimum K2) that is of a physical uplink shared channel and that is configured for an uplink BWP of the terminal device (Fig. 4, step 410-420; paragraph 18-20 describes adaptation of DCI indication of minimum schedule offsets K0 and K2 for PDSCH and PUSCH; paragraph 18, 24; adapting K0/K2 have different minimum values for different slots shows at least two minimum values of K0 and K2 among a target “set” of minimum applicable values, as claimed), wherein the indication information indicates a first minimum KO/K2 is configured for at least one active downlink/uplink BWP of the terminal device in case of a first state value, and the indication information indicates a second minimum KO/K2 is configured for at least one active downlink/uplink BWP of the terminal device in case of a second state value (paragraph 18-24; K0/K2 for PDSCH/PUSCH based on different slot within given BWP).
Although Wu does not expressly disclose the minimum K0 and K2 values configured via RRC, analogous art to Lee (Title; Abstract; Fig. 5) discloses minimum K0 and K2 values configured via RRC corresponding to different index values (paragraph 132, 139; TDRA tables including default and dynamic minimum K0/K2 values configured via RRC prior to L1/DCI signaling to change BWPs corresponding to different index values).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Wu by configuring minimum K0 and K2 values via RRC corresponding to different index values, as shown by Lee, thereby enabling slot offset values to be identified from RRC configured TDRA lists and compared with DCI signaled minimum values for switching between downlink and uplink channels.
Regarding claims 6 and 16,
Wu discloses communication apparatus (Fig. 2, apparatus 210) comprising at least one processor (Fig. 2, processor 212); and a memory (Fig. 2, memory 214) storing programming instructions for execution by the at least one processor, the programming instructions instructing the communication apparatus to a method (Fig. 4; paragraph 36-37) comprising receiving (Fig. 1, UE 110; Fig. 4, step 410) downlink control information from a network device (PDCCH/DCI; paragraph 19-20), wherein the downlink control information comprises indication information, and the indication information indicates one of at least two first minimum applicable slot offset (minimum KO) that is of a physical downlink shared channel and that is configured for a downlink bandwidth part (BWP) of the terminal device, and the indication information indicates one of at least two second minimum applicable slot offset (minimum K2) that is of a physical uplink shared channel and that is configured for an uplink BWP of the terminal device (Fig. 4, step 410-420; paragraph 18-20 describes adaptation of DCI indication of minimum schedule offsets K0 and K2 for PDSCH and PUSCH; paragraph 18, 24; adapting K0/K2 have different minimum values for different slots shows at least two minimum values of K0 and K2 among a target “set” of minimum applicable values, as claimed), wherein the indication information indicates a first minimum KO/K2 is configured for at least one active downlink/uplink BWP of the terminal device in case of a first state value, and the indication information indicates a second minimum KO/K2 is configured for at least one active downlink/uplink BWP of the terminal device in case of a second state value (paragraph 18-24; K0/K2 for PDSCH/PUSCH based on different slot within given BWP).
Although Wu does not expressly disclose the minimum K0 and K2 values configured via RRC, analogous art to Lee (Title; Abstract; Fig. 5) discloses minimum K0 and K2 values configured via RRC corresponding to different index values (paragraph 132, 139; TDRA tables including default and dynamic minimum K0/K2 values configured via RRC prior to L1/DCI signaling to change BWPs corresponding to different index values).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Wu by configuring minimum K0 and K2 values via RRC corresponding to different index values, as shown by Lee, thereby enabling slot offset values to be identified from RRC configured TDRA lists and compared with DCI signaled minimum values for switching between downlink and uplink channels.
Regarding claims 3, 8, 13, and 18,
The combination of Wu and Lee discloses, if the downlink control information is for scheduling downlink data, the indication information indicates the one of the at least two minimum KO configured for the currently activated downlink BWP of the terminal device (Fig. 4, step 420; paragraph 19-24, 31-32, Table 1; adapt to new minimum applicable value of DL scheduling offset K0) and if the downlink control information is for scheduling uplink data, the indication information indicates the one of the at least two minimum K2 configured for the currently activated uplink BWP of the terminal device (Fig. 4, step 420; paragraph 19-24, 31-32, Table 1; adapt to new minimum applicable value of UL scheduling offset K2) but fails to expressly disclose the downlink control information does not indicate the terminal device to switch a currently activated downlink BWP and uplink BWP.
However, Wu at least suggest the downlink control information does not indicate the terminal device to switch a currently activated downlink BWP and uplink BWP (paragraph 19; adaptation faster than BWP switching), therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to not switch a currently activated BWP such that adaptation of the minimum applicable value of the scheduling offset K0/K2 is applied to the current active BWP.
Regarding claims 4, 9, 14, and 19,
The combination of Wu and Lee discloses when the downlink control information indicates the terminal device to switch an activated downlink BWP from a currently activated downlink BWP to a to-be-activated downlink BWP, the indication information indicates the one of the at least two minimum KO configured for the to-be-activated downlink BWP (Fig. 4, step 420; paragraph 19-24, 31-32, Table 1; BWP switching based on indication; adapt to new minimum applicable value of DL scheduling offset K0) or when the downlink control information indicates the terminal device to switch an activated uplink BWP from a currently activated uplink BWP to a to-be-activated uplink BWP, the indication information indicates the one of the at least one minimum K2 configured for the to-be-activated uplink BWP (Fig. 4, step 420; paragraph 19-24, 31-32, Table 1; BWP switching based on indication; adapt to new minimum applicable value of UL scheduling offset K2).
3. Claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12, 15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu and Lee in view of Lin et al. (US20200236692A1), hereafter Lin.
Regarding claims 2, 7, 12, and 17,
Wu discloses the minimum KO configured for the downlink BWP and the minimum K2 configured for the uplink BWP are in a one-to-one correspondence (paragraph 26, 30; joint indication via common index) but Wu and Lee do not expressly disclose the correspondence “in ascending order of indexes”.
Analogous art to Lin discloses managing PDCH processing timelines (Title) including correspondence of K0 and K2 values in ascending order of indexes (Fig. 10-11; paragraph 180-186; when configured with candidate minimum values for K0 in DL BWP and K2 in UL BWP, K0 expected to be smaller than K2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Wu and Lee by providing the K0/K2 correspondence in ascending order of indexes, as shown by Lin, in order to coordinate switching between DL and UL BWPs.
Regarding claims 5, 10, 15, and 20,
The combination of Wu and Lee discloses when the indication information indicates the one of the at least one minimum K0 configured for the downlink BWP of the terminal device, determining, by the network device, that the minimum K0 indicated by the indication information is a minimum K0 of the downlink BWP of the terminal device, and determining that a minimum K2 that is in the at least one minimum K2 configured for the uplink BWP of the terminal device and that corresponds to the minimum K0 is a minimum K2 of the uplink BWP; or when the indication information indicates the one of the at least two minimum K2 configured for the uplink BWP of the terminal device, determining, by the network device, that the minimum K2 indicated by the indication information is a minimum K2 of the uplink BWP of the terminal device, and determining that a minimum KO that is in the at least two minimum K0 configured for the downlink BWP of the terminal device and that corresponds to the minimum K2 is a minimum K0 of the downlink BWP (Fig. 4, step 420; paragraph 19-24, 31-32, Table 1; BWP switching based on indication; adapt to new minimum applicable value of DL/UL scheduling offset K0/K2).
Wu and Lee do not expressly show determining that the indicated minimum K0/K2 of the downlink/uplink BWO is valid.
Analogous art to Lin discloses managing PDCH processing timelines (Title) including determining that the indicated minimum K0/K2 of the downlink/uplink BWO is valid (Fig. 10-11; paragraph 180-186; when configured with candidate minimum values for K0 in DL BWP and K2 in UL BWP, K0 expected to be smaller than K2’ paragraph 191, 197-200, 209; valid/invalid offset parameter according to defined relationship).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Wu and Lee by determining that the indicated minimum K0/K2 of the downlink/uplink BWO is valid, as shown by Lin, thereby ensuring any new indication is valid before adaptation to the new indication.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 3/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on pg. 11-15 of the Response, Applicant contends Wu, including the Provisional Application of Wu, fails to disclose the two minimum K0 and K2 are configured via RRC having different (i.e. first and second) states corresponding to different (i.e. 0 and 1) index values. Applicant further contends secondary disclosure to Lee, while showing the use of RRC signaling to configure minimum K0 and K2, also fails to disclose different states corresponding to different index values in the cited TDRA tables.
The Examiner resepectfully disagrees. As now clarified in the rejection, Wu is shown to disclose minimum K0 and K2 values for different slots as well as adapting the minimum K0 and K2 values among a target set of minimum applicable values. The rejection further admits that Wu fails to expressly show those adaptive minimum K0 and K2 values are configured via RRC corresponding to different index values. However, contrary to Applicant’s arguments, the TDRA tables cited from Lee does show configuring of minimum K0 and K2 values similar to that of Wu, while further showing those values are configured via RRC and correspond to different states of different index values, as expressly claimed. See the TDRA table of Lee between paragraphs 93 and 94 as well as the Abstract and paragraphs 3, 121-136, 229, and 248 discussing how the tables are indexed, corresponding to the different slots in Wu. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. 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). Therefore, it is the combination of Wu and Lee, rather than either Wu or Lee alone, that meets the contested claim limitations such that the rejections are properly maintained.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 GREGORY B SEFCHECK whose telephone number is (571)272-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-4PM.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached on 571-272-3144. 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.
/GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights