DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on: 05/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the claims filed on: 05/04/2026.
Claims 1-10, 12-16, 18-20, and 22-23 are pending for Examination.
Claims 1-8 were previously withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1 (Withdrawn), 9, 14-16, and 18-19 have been amended.
NEW claims 22 and 23 have been added.
Claims 11, 17, and 21 have been cancelled to date.
Claim Objections
Claims 18-20 were objected to in the previous Office Action due to claim numbering informalities. These claim objections are withdrawn herewith as Applicant has amended claim 18 to appropriately cure the corresponding deficiency noted in the prior Office Action.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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to claims 9 and 16, Applicant asserts that the current art rejections are moot based on its claim amendments presented in its response. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 12.
However, in the instant Office Action, a new combination of prior art references is relied upon to reject independent claims 9 and 16 under §103. Specifically, Lee is presently relied upon to teach/suggest the amended, alternative claim limitation of “the information being transmitted using …downlink control information (DCI), the information being applied to the PDSCH on a slot-by-slot basis.” As such, Applicant’s above argument is moot, based on this new grounds of rejection, which was warranted by Applicant’s corresponding claim amendments. The Examiner refers Applicant to the new rejection of claims 9 and 16 under §103, including Lee, provided below.
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 9-10, 12-16, 18-19 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. 2022/0322372 A1, Takeda et al. (hereinafter “Takeda”) in view of US PG Pub. 2024/0056828 A1, Gutierrez Gonzalez et al. (hereinafter “Gutierrez Gonzalez”), in further view of US PG Pub 2019/0013881 A1, Olesen et al. (hereinafter “Olesen”), in still further view of US PG Pub 2018/0227922 A1, Lee et al. (hereinafter “Lee”).
With Respect to Claim 9, Takeda teaches:
An operating method of a base station configured to support dynamic spectrum sharing (DSS) between a new radio (NR) network and a long term evolution (LTE) network (paras. [0203]-[0204], and [0235]; and Fig. 1 —a base station (BS) can provide coverage for multiple cells, i.e., LTE and/or NR networks, and support DSS therebetween), the operating method comprising:
setting a cell-specific reference signal (CRS) rate matching pattern with respect to a neighboring LTE cell (paras. [0236]-[0239] and [0242]-[0243]; and Fig. 5B —a CRS rate-matching pattern can be set/determined for one or more neighboring LTE cell(s), i.e., in terms of LTE CRS pattern 1, LTE CRS pattern 2, etc. of Figs. 5A-B);
determining whether to perform CRS rate matching on the neighboring LTE cell the CRS rate matching being based on the CRS rate-matching pattern of the CRS (paras. [0241]-[0243], [0245]-[0247], and [0268]-[0271]; and Figs. 5B and 7 —the network device can determine when/whether to perform NR PDSCH w/LTE rate matching, i.e., depicted in Fig. 5B, as part of its resource scheduling operations to avoid RE overlap and/or cancel interference for associated multi-RAT signaling);
performing rate matching on an NR physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) based on the CRS rate matching pattern in response to determining to perform the CRS rate matching (paras. [0243]-[0244] and [0269]-[0272]; and Fig. 7 —based on the determination, rate matching of the NR PDSCH for one or more identified LTE CRS patterns, i.e., indicated in a RateMatchPatternLTE-CRS information element (IE), associated with one or more neighboring base station(s), can be performed to avoid collision).
However, Takeda does not explicitly teach:
transmitting the CRS rate matching pattern to a terminal in response to the setting; and
transmitting activation information to the terminal indicating to activate the CRS rate matching pattern in response to determining to perform the CRS rate matching of the CRS;
Gutierrez Gonzalez does teach:
transmitting the CRS rate matching pattern to a terminal in response to setting CRS rate matching patterns for neighboring LTE cells (paras. [0077]-[0080], [0084]-[0085], and [0105]; neighboring LTE cells of Fig. 1, and block 804 of Fig. 8 —a network/BS can set one or more CRS rate matching pattern(s) for neighboring LTE cell(s) and then transmit the patterns and other configuration information to a UE); and
transmitting activation information to the terminal indicating to activate the CRS rate matching pattern in response to determining to perform the CRS rate matching of the CRS. (paras. [0077]-[0080], [0084]-[0085], and [0105]; and block 812 of Fig. 8 —a base station can transmit RM pattern activation information to a UE, based on determining which configured CRS rate matching pattern(s) to employ at the UE after analyzing UE measurement report feedback, etc.);
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 Takeda’s neighbor base station CRS rate-matching solutions with the RM pattern configuration and subsequent activation based on UE report feedback, as taught by Gutierrez Gonzalez.
The motivation for doing so would have been to enable a BS to more efficiently determine and quickly de/activate RM patterns at a UE based on real-time measurement reports, as recognized by Gutierrez Gonzalez (paras. [0077]-[0080], [0084]-[0085], and [0105]).
However, Takeda in view of Gutierrez Gonzalez does not explicitly teach:
the determining whether to perform CRS rate matching on the neighboring LTE cell being based on a distance between the terminal and the serving base station.
Olesen does teach:
the determining whether to perform rate matching on a neighboring LTE cell being based on a distance between the terminal and the serving base station (paras. [0103], [0112]-[0113], [0126], [0141]-[0142] and [0145] —data rate-matching for a multi-RAT WTRU, i.e., in a NR-LTE system, can be determined based in part on a distance between a serving BS and the WTRU, where the WTRU may be configured to report its geographical location/location change within a cell to the network —a serving BS can effectuate the rate-matching at the WTRU for inter-RAT interference mitigation/nulling purposes).
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 Takeda in view of Gutierrez Gonzalez’s neighbor base station CRS rate-matching solution with the UE location consideration for rate-matching, as taught by Olesen.
The motivation for doing so would have been to mitigate inter-cell interference through rate-matching/muting, as recognized by Olesen (paras. [0103], [0112]-[0113], [0126], [0141]-[0142] and [0145]).
Takeda in view of Gutierrez Gonzalez and Olesen does not explicitly teach:
the information transmitted to the terminal using downlink control information (DCI), the information being applied on a slot by slot basis.
Lee does teach:
information being transmitted to a terminal using downlink control information (DCI), the information being applied on a slot by slot basis (paras. [0085]-[0087] and [0091]-[0093]; and Fig. 12 —a BS can transmit DCI information to a UE to indicate whether the UE is to activate/perform rate-matching on a PDSCH on a slot-by-slot basis —the DCI information rate-matching rules can be different per-slot —the term “or” only requires a single claimed alternative to be examined on-the-merits for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
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 Takeda in view of Gutierrez Gonzalez and Olesen’s neighbor base station CRS rate-matching activation to include DCI activation of rate-matching per-slot of the PDSCH, as taught by Lee.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve control signaling by allowing rate-matching activation rules to be applied to the PDSCH on a slot-by-slot basis, as recognized by Lee (paras. [0085]-[0087] and [0091]-[0093]; and Fig. 12).
With respect to claim 10, Takeda in view of Gutierrez Gonzalez, Olesen, and Lee teaches:
The operating method of claim 9, wherein the determining whether to perform CRS rate matching on the neighboring LTE cell comprises determining whether to activate a CRS rate matching pattern according to a magnitude of interference due to a CRS measured by the terminal (Takeda: paras. [0239], [0244], and [0269]-[0270]; and steps, 710, 715 and 720 of Fig. 7, and Figs. 10 and 11 —a BS can evaluate a level of interference, i.e., using RSRP/RSRQ threshold comparisons, etc., from received LTE CRS measurements, and then determine whether to include a LTE CRS pattern within a corresponding rate matching configuration —including the corresponding LTE CRS pattern within a rate-matching configuration effectively activates it for purposes of rate-matching and collision avoidance —likewise, not including the LTE CRS pattern in a rate-matching configuration, would not activate it).
With respect to claim 12, Takeda in view of Gutierrez Gonzalez, Olesen, and Lee teaches:
The operating method of claim 10, further comprising:
determining whether to map NR PDSCH to resource elements (REs) to which CRSs are allocated according to the determining whether to activate the CRS rate matching pattern (Takeda: paras. [0238]-[0239], [0242]-[0244], and [0269]; and Fig. 5B —a determination can be made whether to map NR PDSCH to REs allocated for CRS’ (i.e., by CRS cancellation, etc.), and rate-matching can be selectively performed for LTE CRS according to one or more CRS rate matching pattern(s) for one or more TRPs —a rate-matching pattern can be de/activated per cell as part of the configuration based on corresponding RS measurements).
With respect to claim 13, Takeda in view of Gutierrez Gonzalez, Olesen, and Lee teaches:
The operating method of claim 10, further comprising:
wherein the transmitting the CRS rate matching pattern includes transmitting at least one of:
an LTE bandwidth with respect to the neighboring LTE cell;
a location of a center frequency, a number of antenna ports of the CRS;
a frequency shift parameter value; or
multimedia broadcast single frequency network (MBSFN) setting information (Takeda: paras. [0238]-[0239], [0244], and [0252]—the configuration information transmitted to a UE concerning CRS rate matching pattern usage can include DMRS shifting information/parameters —the BS can RRC signal various configuration parameters (i.e., via RateMatchPatternLTE-CRS IE) to a UE, including: LTE carrier bandwidth, center frequency location, a number of CRS antenna ports for rate-matching, MBSFN subframe configuration, v-Shift, etc. —the terms “at least one of” and “or” only require a single claim alternative to be examined on-the-merits for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
With Respect to Claim 14, Takeda in view of Gutierrez Gonzalez, Olesen, and Lee teaches the operating method of claim 13.
However, Takeda does not explicitly teach:
wherein the transmitting activation information is performed using the MAC CE.
Gutierrez Gonzalez does teach:
wherein transmitting activation information is performed using the MAC CE (paras. [0084] and [0108] —a gNB can be configured to transmit control signaling including de/activation information for a CRS rate-matching pattern(s) to a UE via MAC-CE)
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 Takeda’s rate matching pattern activation determination with the real-time, RateMatchPatternLTE IE de/activation signaling (i.e., via MAC CE), taught by Gutierrez Gonzalez.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve real-time de/activation of rate-matching patterns by the network based on measurement/performance feedback and changing resource availability, as recognized by Gutierrez Gonzalez (paras. [0080], [0084]-[0086], and [0108]).
With respect to claim 15, Takeda in view of Gutierrez Gonzalez, Olesen, and Lee teaches the operating method of claim 13.
However, Takeda does not explicitly teach:
wherein transmitting the activation information is performed using the DCI, the activation information being applied to a PDSCH after a time shorter than a certain time.
Lee does teach:
wherein transmitting the activation information is performed using the DCI, the activation information being applied to a PDSCH after a time shorter than a certain time (paras. [0085]-[0087] and [0091]-[0093]; and Fig. 12 —a BS can transmit DCI information to a UE to indicate whether the UE is to activate/perform rate-matching on a PDSCH on a slot-by-slot basis after a time shorter than a certain time, depending on which slot is a reference time corresponding to rate-matching activation).
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 Takeda’s rate-matching activation to include DCI activation on a per-slot basis of the PDSCH according to slot timing, as taught by Lee.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve control signaling by allowing rate-matching activation rules to be applied to the PDSCH on a slot-by-slot basis, as recognized by Lee (paras. [0085]-[0087] and [0091]-[0093]; and Fig. 12).
With respect to claim 16, Takeda teaches:
A base station configured to support dynamic spectrum sharing (DSS) between a new radio (NR) network and a long term evolution (LTE) network (paras. [0203]-[0204], and [0235]; and Fig. 1 —a base station (BS) can provide coverage for multiple cells, i.e., LTE and/or NR networks, and support DSS therebetween), wherein the base station is configured to:
set a first CRS rate matching pattern and determine whether to activate the first CRS rate matching pattern based on a first signal transmitted by a first neighboring LTE cell (paras. [0236]-[0239] and [0242]-[0243]; and Fig. 5B —a first CRS rate-matching pattern and a second CRS rate-matching pattern can be set and activated for one or more neighboring LTE cells, as shown in Fig. 5B as LTE CRS pattern 1 and LTE CRS pattern 2);
determine whether to activate a second CRS rate matching pattern based on, the second CRS rate matching pattern corresponding to a second neighboring LTE cell (paras. [0236]-[0239] and [0242]-[0243]; and Fig. 5B —a first CRS rate-matching pattern and a second CRS rate-matching pattern can be set activated for one or more neighboring LTE cells, as shown in Fig. 5B as LTE CRS pattern 1 and LTE CRS pattern 2),
perform rate matching on resource elements (REs) allocated to a first CRS of the first neighboring LTE cell in response to determining to activate the first CRS rate matching pattern corresponding to the first neighboring LTE cell (paras. [0237], [0241]-[0242], [0245] [0247], and [0269]-[0270]; and Figs. 5B and 7 —the network device can determine to perform NR PDSCH w/LTE rate matching for REs associated with a first CRS of a first neighboring LTE cell, i.e., depicted in Fig. 5B, to refrain from transmitting NR data thereon), and
map a new radio (NR) physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) to REs allocated to a second CRS of the second neighboring LTE cell in response to determining not to activate the second CRS rate matching pattern corresponding to the second neighboring LTE cell (paras. [0239], [0241], [0243], [0245] [0247], and [0269]-[0270]; and Figs. 5B and 7 —the network device can determine to map/transmit NR PDSCH data to REs allocated to a second neighboring LTE cell’s CRS as part of its resource scheduling operations).
However, Takeda does not explicitly teach:
transmit a first (cell-specific reference signal) CRS rate matching pattern to a terminal in response to setting a first CRS rate matching pattern, the first CRS rate matching pattern corresponding to a first neighboring LTE cell;
transmit first information to the terminal indicating activation of the first CRS rate matching pattern in response to determining to activate the first CRS rate matching pattern; and
transmit second information to the terminal indicating deactivation of the second CRS rate matching pattern in response to determining not to activate the second CRS rate matching pattern;
Gutierrez Gonzalez does teach:
transmit a first (cell-specific reference signal) CRS rate matching pattern to a terminal in response to setting a first CRS rate matching pattern, the first CRS rate matching pattern corresponding to a first neighboring LTE cell (paras. [0077]-[0080], [0084]-[0085], and [0105]; neighboring LTE cells of Fig. 1, and block 804 of Fig. 8 —a network/BS can set one or more CRS rate matching pattern(s) for neighboring LTE cell(s) and then transmit the patterns and other configuration information to a UE);
transmit first information to the terminal indicating activation of the first CRS rate matching pattern in response to determining to activate the first CRS rate matching pattern (paras. [0077]-[0080], [0084]-[0085], and [0105]; and block 812 of Fig. 8 —a base station can transmit RM pattern activation information to a UE, based on determining which configured CRS rate matching pattern(s) to employ at the UE after analyzing UE measurement report feedback, etc.); and
transmit second information to the terminal indicating deactivation of the second CRS rate matching pattern in response to determining not to activate the second CRS rate matching pattern (paras. [0077]-[0080], [0084]-[0085], and [0105]; and block 812 of Fig. 8 —a base station can transmit RM pattern deactivation information to a UE, based on determining which configured CRS rate matching pattern(s) NOT to employ at the UE after analyzing UE measurement report feedback, etc.);
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 Takeda’s neighbor base station CRS rate-matching solutions with the RM pattern configuration and subsequent de/activation based on UE report feedback, as taught by Gutierrez Gonzalez.
The motivation for doing so would have been to enable a BS to more efficiently determine and quickly de/activate RM patterns at a UE based on real-time measurement reports, as recognized by Gutierrez Gonzalez (paras. [0077]-[0080], [0084]-[0085], and [0105]).
However, Takeda and Gutierrez Gonzalez do not explicitly teach:
the determining whether to perform CRS rate matching on the neighboring LTE cell being based on a distance between the terminal and the serving base station.
Olesen does teach:
the determining whether to activate the first CRS rate matching pattern is based on a distance between the terminal and the base station (paras. [0103], [0112]-[0113], [0126], [0141]-[0142] and [0145] —data rate-matching for a multi-RAT WTRU, i.e., in a NR-LTE system, can be determined based in part on a distance between a serving BS and the WTRU, where the WTRU may be configured to report its geographical location/location change within a cell to the network —a serving BS can effectuate the rate-matching at the WTRU for inter-RAT interference mitigation/nulling purposes); and
the determining whether to activate the second CRS rate matching pattern is based on a distance between the terminal and the base station (paras. [0103], [0112]-[0113], [0126], [0141]-[0142] and [0145] —data rate-matching for a multi-RAT WTRU, i.e., in a NR-LTE system, can be determined based in part on a distance between a serving BS and the WTRU, where the WTRU may be configured to report its geographical location/location change within a cell to the network —a serving BS can effectuate the rate-matching at the WTRU for inter-RAT interference mitigation/nulling purposes).
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 Takeda in view of Gutierrez Gonzalez’s CRS rate-matching pattern activation solution with the UE location consideration for activating one or more rate-matching patterns, as taught by Olesen.
The motivation for doing so would have been to mitigate inter-cell interference through rate-matching/muting, as recognized by Olesen (paras. [0103], [0112]-[0113], [0126], [0141]-[0142] and [0145]).
Takeda in view of Gutierrez Gonzalez and Olesen does not explicitly teach:
the information transmitted to the terminal using downlink control information (DCI), the information being applied on a slot by slot basis.
Lee does teach:
information being transmitted to a terminal using downlink control information (DCI), the information being applied on a slot by slot basis (paras. [0085]-[0087] and [0091]-[0093]; and Fig. 12 —a BS can transmit DCI information to a UE to indicate whether the UE is to activate/perform rate-matching on a PDSCH on a slot-by-slot basis —the DCI information rate-matching rules can be different per-slot —the term “or” only requires a single claimed alternative to be examined on-the-merits for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
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 Takeda in view of Gutierrez Gonzalez and Olesen’s neighbor base station CRS rate-matching activation to include DCI activation of rate-matching per-slot of the PDSCH, as taught by Lee.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve control signaling by allowing rate-matching activation rules to be applied to the PDSCH on a slot-by-slot basis, as recognized by Lee (paras. [0085]-[0087] and [0091]-[0093]; and Fig. 12).
With respect to claim 18, Takeda in view of Gutierrez Gonzalez, Olesen, and Lee teaches:
The base station of claim 16, wherein the base station is configured to transmit the second CRS rate matching pattern and information indicating whether to activate the first CRS rate matching pattern and the second CRS rate matching pattern to the terminal, and the first CRS rate matching pattern and the second CRS rate matching pattern comprising at least one of, an LTE bandwidth with respect to each of the first neighboring LTE cell and the second neighboring LTE cell, a location of a center frequency, a number of antenna ports of each of the first CRS and the second CRS, a frequency shift parameter value, or multimedia broadcast single frequency network (MBSFN) setting information (Takeda: paras. [0238]-[0239], [0244], and [0252]; and Fig. 5B —configuration information transmitted to a UE concerning a first CRS rate matching pattern and a second CRS rate matching pattern usage/activation can include DMRS shifting information and other parameters —the BS can RRC signal these other configuration parameters (i.e., via RateMatchPatternLTE-CRS IE) to a UE, including: LTE carrier bandwidth, center frequency location, a number of CRS antenna ports for rate-matching, MBSFN subframe configuration, v-Shift, etc. —the terms “at least one of” and “or” only require a single claim alternative to be examined on-the-merits for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
With Respect to Claim 19, this claim recites similar features to those recited in dependent claims 14 and 15, in the alterative. As such, claim 19 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Takeda in view of Gutierrez Gonzalez, Olesen, and Lee, for the same reasons provided above for claims 14 and 15.
With respect to claim 22, Takeda in view of Gutierrez Gonzalez, Olesen and Lee teaches the base station of claim 16.
However, Takeda does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first information is transmitted using the MAC CE.
Gutierrez Gonzalez does teach:
wherein transmitting activation information is performed using the MAC CE (paras. [0084] and [0108] —a gNB can be configured to transmit control signaling including de/activation information for a CRS rate-matching pattern(s) to a UE via MAC-CE)
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 Takeda’s rate matching pattern activation determination with the real-time, RateMatchPatternLTE IE de/activation signaling (i.e., via MAC CE), taught by Gutierrez Gonzalez.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve real-time de/activation of rate-matching patterns by the network based on measurement/performance feedback and changing resource availability, as recognized by Gutierrez Gonzalez (paras. [0080], [0084]-[0086], and [0108]).
With respect to claim 23, Takeda in view of Gutierrez Gonzalez, Olesen and Lee teaches the base station of claim 16.
However, Takeda does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first information is transmitted using the DCI, the activation information being applied after a time period shorter than a certain time.
Lee does teach:
wherein the first information is transmitted using the DCI, the activation information being applied after a time period shorter than a certain time (paras. [0085]-[0087] and [0091]-[0093]; and Fig. 12 —a BS can transmit DCI information to a UE to indicate whether the UE is to activate/perform rate-matching on a PDSCH on a slot-by-slot basis after a time shorter than a certain time, depending on which slot is a reference time corresponding to rate-matching activation).
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 Takeda’s rate-matching activation to include DCI activation on a per-slot basis of the PDSCH according to slot timing, as taught by Lee.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve control signaling by allowing rate-matching activation rules to be applied to the PDSCH on a slot-by-slot basis, as recognized by Lee (paras. [0085]-[0087] and [0091]-[0093]; and Fig. 12).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda in view of Gutierrez Gonzalez, Olesen, and Lee, in further view of US PG Pub 2022/0224471 A1, Kim et al. (hereinafter “Kim”).
With Respect to Claim 20, Takeda in view of Gutierrez Gonzalez, Olesen and Lee teaches:
The base station of claim 19, wherein the base station is configured to determine whether to activate the first CRS rate matching pattern and the second CRS rate matching pattern, as explained above in claim 16.
However, Takeda in view of Gutierrez Gonzalez, Olesen and Lee does not teach:
activation determinations based on using a code point method in a group unit.
Kim does teach:
activation determinations based on using a code point method in a group unit (paras. [0021]-[0022], [0301]-[0302], and [0384] —a code point of a TCI field in DCI can be mapped to a particular TCI state, i.e., for 2 TCI states, as part of a de/activation determination, where the TCI state is associated with a particular CDM group, i.e., for DMRS type 1).
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 Takeda in view of Gutierrez Gonzalez, Olesen and Lee’s rate matching pattern activation determinations for first and second CRS rate matching patterns with activation based on TCI code point mapping information, as taught by Kim.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve activation of rate-matching patterns by evaluating TCI type mapping for particular CDM groups, as recognized by Kim (paras. [0021]-[0022], [0301]-[0302], and [0384]).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights