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 .
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 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.
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 10/29/2025.
Claims 32, 37, 42, & 47 are cancelled. Claims 29-31, 33-36, 38-41, 43-46, & 48 remain pending. Claims 29, 34, 39, & 44 are amended. Claims 29-31, 33-36, 38-41, 43-46, & 48 have been examined and are rejected.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/29/2025 has been entered.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/KR2021/004269 and claims foreign priority to CN202011398951.0 filed 12/1/2020 and CN202010280098.6 filed 4/10/2020.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the communications above have been fully considered but are not persuasive. In the communications filed, applicant argues in substance that:
Argument (a) since paragraph [0032] in Harada describes that a number of cells for scheduling using a single DCL is two or greater than two, it actually teaches away from “a downlink control information (DCI) format for scheduling one physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) in one cell or multiple PDSCHs in multiple cells,” as recited in amended independent Claim 29. In other words, “a DCI format” as recited in amended independent Claim 29 can be used to perform two functions: scheduling one PDSCH in one cell or scheduling multiple PDSCHs in multiple cells, thereby saving resources occupied by downlink control information (i.e. DCT) as disclosed in paragraph [336] in the detailed description of the present published application.
In response to Argument (a), examiner respectfully disagrees.
In paragraph [0043] Harada provides:
In the following, a specific configuration of the rate matching indicator field is considered for a case in which a plurality of cells is scheduled. For example, it may be determined, for a plurality of cells scheduled by the base station 20, whether it can be specified to apply rate matching by the Rate matching indicator field, and how to specify the rate matching by the Rate matching indicator field. Additionally or alternatively, it may be determined, for one cell of a plurality of cells scheduled by the base station 20, whether it can be specified to apply rate matching by the Rate matching indicator field, and how to specify the rate matching by the Rate matching indicator field. In the embodiments described below, the number of CCs scheduled by a single DCI is 2, but the number of CCs scheduled by a single DCI is not limited to 2. The number of CCs scheduled by a single DCI may be, for example, 1 or greater than 2.
Moreover, each of the multiple proposals described in paragraphs [0045-86] of Harada begins with a variation of “If the base station 20 schedules multiple cells with a single DCI”. As such Harada contemplates utilizing a single DCI to schedule 2 or more cells, as well as a single cell.
Additionally, claim 29 recites: a downlink control information (DCI) format for scheduling (i) one physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) in one cell or (ii) multiple PDSCHs in multiple cells. Examiner notes the limitation is recited in the alternative and only one of the limitations denoted by (i) or (ii) is required by the claim.
With respect to applicant’s remaining arguments, the arguments are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
For at least these reasons, applicant’s arguments are considered not persuasive.
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 of this title, 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 29-31, 33-36, 38-41, 43-46, & 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al. (US 2023/0041809 A1) in view of Xu et al. (US 2021/0258996 A1).
With regard to Claim 29, Harada teaches:
A method performed by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
receiving, from a base station, information on a downlink control information (DCI) format for scheduling one physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) in one cell or multiple PDSCHs in multiple cells; (terminal 10 receives DCI for scheduling of PDSCHs of one or more cells using a single DCI [Harada: 0003; 0009; 0049]);
receiving data on the one PDSCH of the one cell in case that the DCI format schedules the one PDSCH of the one cell; and receiving data on the multiple PDSCHs of the plurality of cells in case that the DCI format schedules the multiple PDSCHs of the multiple cells, wherein an indicator included in the DCI format indicates scheduled cells corresponding to the multiple cells in case that the DCI format schedules the multiple PDSCHs of the multiple cells; (the DCI format used to perform scheduling can include resource information comprising a Carrier indicator, a Bandwidth-part indicator, Frequency-domain resource allocation, Time-domain resource allocation, VRB-to-PRB mapping, PRB bundling size indicator, Rate matching indicator, Zero-power CSI-RS trigger, or the like [Harada: 0035-36]);
and wherein a bandwidth part (BWP) indicator included in the DCI format is applicable to the scheduled cells in case that the DCI format schedules the multiple PDSCHs of the multiple cells; (when the base station schedules multiple cells with a single DCI, the DCI comprises a (singular) BWP that may be jointly coded with another field in the DCI [Harada: 0036; 0085; 0131-33; Fig. 4]. Examiner notes that the single BWP indicated by the single DCI used to schedule multiple cells is applicable to the multiple scheduled cells).
However, Harada does not teach (where underlining indicates the portion of each limitation not taught):
and wherein a bandwidth part (BWP) indicator included in the DCI format is applicable to the scheduled cells in case that the DCI format schedules the multiple PDSCHs of the multiple cells, the BWP indicator corresponding to an ascending order of a BWP identifier.
In a similar field of endeavor involving scheduling multiple cells by a single DCI message, Xu discloses:
and wherein a bandwidth part (BWP) indicator included in the DCI format is applicable to the scheduled cells in case that the DCI format schedules the multiple PDSCHs of the multiple cells, the BWP indicator corresponding to an ascending order of a BWP identifier; (the single DCI message includes a single BWP indicator value within a single BWP indicator field that represents a single value that is used to identify multiple BWPs for the multiple cells by indicating a particular BWP in an ordered set of BWPs for a first cell (e.g., the first BWP in the ordered set) and indicating a particular BWP in an ordered set of BWPs for the second cell (e.g., the first BWP in the ordered set) [Xu: 0230-32]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harada in view of Xu in order to utilize a BWP indicator corresponding to an ascending order of a BWP identifier in the system of Harada.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Harada with Xu as by using a single BWP indicator field and a single BWP indicator value, signaling overhead may be reduced and network resources may be conserved [Xu: 0230].
With regard to Claim 30, Harada-Xu teaches:
The method of claim 29, wherein: the DCI format further includes a rate matching indicator (RMI); and the RMI indicates a rate matching value to be used for the scheduled cells in case that the DCI format schedules the multiple PDSCHs of the multiple cells; (the DCI used to perform scheduling on a plurality of cells comprises a Rate matching indicator indicating whether the rate matching pattern configured for a plurality of resource elements (REs) can be used for PDSCH [Harada: 0036; 0039-43; 0085]).
With regard to Claim 31, Harada-Xu teaches:
The method of claim 29, wherein: the DCI format further includes a zero power channel state information-reference signal (ZP CSI-RS) trigger indicator; and the ZP CSI-RS trigger indicator indicates a CSI-RS value to be used for the scheduled cells in case that the DCI format schedules the multiple PDSCHs of the multiple cells; (the DCI used to perform scheduling on a plurality of cells comprises a Zero-power CSI-RS trigger [Harada: 0036; 0086]).
With regard to Claim 33, Harada-Xu teaches:
The method of claim 29, further comprising receiving, from the base station, higher layer signaling information for scheduling in the multiple cells; (if the base station 20 schedules multiple cells with a single DCI, the number of rate matching pattern groups are configured by RRC signaling, wherein notification of any described information may be implemented by higher layer signaling (e.g., Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling [Harada: 0051; 0079; 0124]).
With regard to Claims 34-36, 38-41, 43-46, & 48, they appear substantially similar to the limitations recited by claims 29-31 & 33 and consequently do not appear to teach or further define over the citations provided for said claims. Accordingly, claims 34-36, 38-41, 43-46, & 48 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 29-31 & 33.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yang et al. (US 2019/0313385 A1) which teaches a DCI format that includes multiple CIFs, each CIF indicating a different cell for a repetition of the scheduled transmission, wherein the PDCCH repetitions on the different cells schedule the same transmission, for example the same physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) [0018-19; 0081-82].
In the case of amendments, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and support, for ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN J MOREAU whose telephone number is (571) 272-5179. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 - 6:00 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, Brian Gillis can be reached on 571-272-7952. 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.
/AUSTIN J MOREAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446