DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/26/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/19/25 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments, starting on page 4, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 7 and 11 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Sengupta in view of Pelletier and Zhou does not disclose all the features of the instant claim because Sengupta does not disclose “the second information includes a field of 1 bit, and the third information includes a field of 2 bits”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In paragraph 109, Sengupta discloses “In an example, for N transport blocks 220 scheduled by the DCI block 215, the above configuration may use N bits for the HARQ process ID, N bits for the new data indicator field, and 2N bits for the RV index signaling.” In the case that N=1, then the second information (NDI) is 1 bit, and the third information (RV) is two bits. Applicant argues that N cannot be 1 because in paragraph 98 Sengupta recites “The DCI block 215 may schedule between 1 and N transport blocks 220, where N may be 2, 4, 8, and so on (e.g., where N is a power of 2, or 2n).” However, there is nothing that precludes n from being 0. Thus, Sengupta does teach this feature. Additionally, for the sake of expediting prosecution, the examiner notes that this feature is also taught by Nagata (US 20140057640 A1) in Table 5.
Applicant also argues that Sengupta in view of Pelletier and Zhou does not disclose all the features of the instant claim because Sengupta does not disclose “wherein a size of a format of the downlink control information is larger than sizes of DCI format 1_0 and DCI format 0_0, and configuration for the format of the downlink control information changes according to a configuration for the format of the downlink control information.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is not recitation in the claim or in the specification of what the length of a DCI format 1_0 or DCI format 0_0. Thus, the size is to be interpreted according to its broadest reasonable interpretation. Sengupta in paragraph 99 discloses that the DCI may be up to 128 bits long depending on the number of TBs. One of ordinary skill in the art would interpret 128 bits as longer than a typical DCI format 1_0 or DCI format 0_0, and thus Sengupta teaches that the size of the DCI is larger than the sizes of DCI format 1_0 and DCI format 0_0. And the size varies based on the number of TBs, and thus Sengupta teaches that the “configuration for the format of the downlink control information changes according to a configuration for the format of the downlink control information.” Thus, Sengupta does teach this feature. And thus, Sengupta in view of Pelletier and Zhou do teach all the features of the instant claims.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sengupta (US 20200145964 A1) in view of Pelletier (US 20180123769 A1) and further in view of Zhou (US 20210219329 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Sengupta discloses:
“A terminal comprising: a receiver that receives, from a base station, downlink control information for scheduling a plurality of … and a processor that controls scheduling of a shared channel based on the downlink control information,” ([para 0141]: “The device 505 may include a receiver 510, a communications manager 515, and a transmitter 520. The device 505 may also include a processor.” ; [para 0098]: “Instead, base station 105-a may transmit a DCI block 215 to schedule multiple transport blocks 220. The DCI block 215 may include control information for each of the multiple transport blocks 220.” ; [para 0096]: “In some cases, the transport block 220 may carry uplink or downlink data and be transmitted on an uplink data channel (e.g., a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH)) or a downlink data channel (e.g., a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH)) scheduled by the DCI.”)
“wherein the downlink control information includes, for each of the plurality of cells: first information indicating a modulation and coding scheme; second information indicating whether new data or retransmission data is to be transmitted; and third information specifying a coding method used for retransmission,” ([para 0109]: “In an example, for N transport blocks 220 scheduled by the DCI block 215, the above configuration may use N bits for the HARQ process ID, N bits for the new data indicator field, and 2N bits for the RV index signaling. If common repetition numbers, MCS, and frequency hopping configurations are used for each of the N transport blocks 220, the DCI block 215 may also include m bits for indicating the MCS, r bits for indicating the repetition number, and 1 bit for indicating frequency hopping.”)
“wherein a transport block transmitted via the shared channel includes a first transport block and a second transport block different from the first transport block, and wherein the first information, the second information, and the third information are set for each of the plurality of … and for each of the first transport block and the second transport block...” ([para 0055]: “To improve the efficiency and reduce the power consumption associated with downlink scheduling, a base station described herein may instead use a single DCI block to schedule multiple transport blocks.”)
“…wherein the first information includes a field of 5 bits,” ([para 0106]: “For a conventional DCI, the MCS indicator may include a varying number of bits (e.g., 4 or 5 bits).”)
“the second information includes a field of 1 bit, and the third information includes a field of 2 bits.” ([para 0109]: “In an example, for N transport blocks 220 scheduled by the DCI block 215, the above configuration may use N bits for the HARQ process ID, N bits for the new data indicator field, and 2N bits for the RV index signaling.”)
“wherein a size of a format of the downlink control information is larger than sizes of DCI format 1_0 and DCI format 0_0, and the size of the format of the downlink control information changes according to a configuration for the format of the downlink control information.” ([para 0099]: “In one example, a conventional DCI may include 16 bits to schedule a single transport block 220, and base station 105-a may schedule eight transport blocks 220. According to this first technique, the grouped DCI transmission may be 128 bits long, where the first bit through the 16th bit schedule TB1 220-a, the 17th bit through the 32nd bit schedule TB2 220-b, the 33rd bit through the 48th bit schedule TB3 220-c, and so on.”)
Sengupta does not disclose the DCI is for scheduling a plurality of “cells” nor “in a single DCI format.”
However, Pelletier discloses the missing feature the DCI is for scheduling a plurality of “cells.” ([para 0008]: “Each transport block may be associated with one of the first or second serving cell... The DCI may include multiple sets of scheduling parameters. One set of the plurality of scheduling parameters may be associated with each cell.” ; [para 0118]: “DCI contained in a PDCCH for multiple cells or TTIs may include using a single DCI for multiple cells or TTIs... DCI may indicate scheduling information for a plurality of transport blocks. DCI may indicate scheduling information for a transport block which spans over the plurality of cells or TTIs.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Sengupta and Pelletier, to modify the DCI as disclosed by Sengupta, to schedule not just a plurality of TBs but also a plurality of cells Pelletier. The motivation for doing so is that it increases scheduling flexibility, thus allowed for more efficient allocation of resource, thus improving service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sengupta with Pelletier to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Sengupta in view of Pelletier does not disclose “in a single DCI format.”
However, Zhou discloses the missing feature “in a single DCI format.” ([para 0467]: “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, a method of scheduling multiple transport blocks in DCI introduces a new DCI format that schedules the multiple transport blocks based on resource positions used by the transport blocks.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Sengupta, Pelletier, and Zhou to modify the multi-TB DCI as disclosed by Sengupta, to be in a single format as disclosed by Zhou. The motivation for doing so is that it increases efficiency, thus improving service quality (see Zhou paragraph 38). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sengupta with Pelletier and Zhou to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 11 is similar to claim 7 with the differences amounting to that claim 7 is from the perspective of the terminal, while claim 11 is from the perspective of the base station. Thus claim 11 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached on (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights