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 .
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 29, 30, 34, 37, 38, 40, 44 and 47-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AGIWAL et al PG PUB 2020/0296759.
Re Claims 29 and 39, AGIWAL et al teaches in figure 3, a UE (a receiver, a processor and a transmitter) receiving a RRC configuration message indicating a list of SSB/CSI/RSs (one or more signals) associated with Configured Grants [0083] wherein the RRC configuration includes a UL grant configuration information (a first configuration information) indicating one or more CG resources each associated with the respective SSB/CSI/RSs (one or more signals) [0027]; further receiving a AS-configuration information (a second configuration information) indicating QoS flow to DRB mapping rules [0057]; a UE can select a suitable a respective CG grant based on selected SSB/CSI-RS (a respective signal) measured above a RSRP measured threshold [0067]; transmitting an UL MAC PDU (a message) using the selected CG grant/resource [0102] wherein the UL MAC PDU can be configured to continue with any ongoing data forwarding (on a condition that data available for transmission) [0066].
AGIWAL et al fails to explicitly teach the AS-configuration indicating “…an association between one or more DRBs and with one or more CG resources…”.
However, by associating the received the “QoS flow to DRB mapping rules” to “the UL grant configuration information”, the QoS in the continued ongoing data forwarding on the selected CG resource can be maintained. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to maintain the QoS for the ongoing data transmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have associated the one or more DRBs and the one or more CG resources.
Re Claims 34, 37, 38, See Claim 29.
Re Claims 30, 40, AGIWAL et al teaches the UL MAC PDU (uplink data) [0102] configured UL MAC PDU for the ongoing data forwarding [0066] wherein the UL MAC PDU is associated with a DRB for the selected CG resource.
Re Claims 44, 47, 48, See Claim 39.
Re Claims 49, 50, AGIWAL et al teaches in figure 2, a mapping between the CG resources of the one or more CG resource and the SSB/CSI-RS (the respective signal) via RRC signaling [0081]
Claims 31, 32, 41 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AGIWAL et al PG PUB 2020/0296759 in view of WANG et al PG PUB 2022/0256575.
Re Claims 31, 32, 42 and 41, AGIWAL et al teaches the UL MAC PDU is transmitted based on the ongoing data forwarding (the uplink data) on the selected CG resource. AGIWAL et al fails to explicitly teach “the uplink data being associated with a LCH of a configured subset of LCHs”. However, WANG et al a PUSCH using configured grant is associated with the priority of LCHs/logical channel groups (LCG) for collision handling mechanism [0120-0125]. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to mitigate for collision. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Claims 33 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AGIWAL et al PG PUB 2020/0296759 in view of ZHOU et al PG PUB 2022/0104187.
Re Claims 33 and 43, AGIWAL et al teaches the UL MAC PDU is transmitted based on the ongoing data forwarding (the uplink data). AGIWAL et al fails to explicitly teach “based on the uplink data being a new data for transmission”. However, ZHOU et al teaches a UE receiving a NDI (new data indicator) for transmitting a PUSCH [0467]. By combining the teachings, Configured Grants in AGIWAL et al can be modified to support new data transmissions. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have supported new data transmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Claims 36 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AGIWAL et al PG PUB 2020/0296759 in view of WANG et al PG PUB 2023/0344497.
Re Claims 36 and 46, AGIWAL et al teaches measuring the SSB/CSI-RS (a respective signal) is above a RSRP measured threshold (a first value) [0067] but fails to explicitly teach “a second value of RSRP and wherein the first value of RSRP is larger than the second value”. However, WANG et al teaches in figure 10, S1040, Channel quality is greater than T2 and if so, S1060 determines a new link to schedule data transmission [0105]. By combining the teachings, the threshold value in AGWIAL et al can be modified to include a second value whereby when “the first value is larger than the second value”, the UE would have adaptively determined a new link for transmitting the data. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have includes first and second threshold values to adaptively suspend the measurement of channel quality or determine to search for the new link. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 29-34, 36-44 and 46-50 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3130. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM ET.
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, KASSIM KHALAD can be reached at 5712703770. 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.
/ANDREW LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights