DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the claims filed on: 04/28/2026
Claims 1-2, 7, 9, 14-15, 20, 28, 33, 39, 41-42, and 44-46 are pending for Examination.
Claims 1, 7, 14, 20, 28, and 41 have been amended.
Claims 3-6, 8, 10-13, 16-19, 21-27, 29-32, 34-38, 40, and 43 have been cancelled to date.
Rejections Under 35 USC §112
Claims 1-2, 7, 9, 14-15, 20, 28, 33, 39, 41-42, and 44-46 were each rejected under §112(b) in the previous Office Action. These rejections are withdrawn herewith in view of Applicant’s corrective claim amendments.
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 04/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to claims 1, 14, 28, and 33, Applicant argues that “Babaei merely teaches scheduling one channel/signal transmission of the wireless device by using a DCI,” and then alleges: “Babaei fails to teach scheduling multiple channel or signal transmissions of the terminal by using one DCI,” and “Babaei also fails to teach performing, by the terminal, multiple channel or signal transmissions in accordance with one DCI.” Applicant’s Remarks at p. 17.
In this regard, Applicant specifically contests the §103 rejection of independent claims 1, 14, 28, and 33, based on Babaei in view of He, arguing the following claim limitations neither taught or suggested based on Babaei: “wherein the DCI is used for scheduling N channel or N signal transmissions of the terminal,” and “performing, by the terminal N channel or N signal transmissions in accordance with the DCI,” “…where N is an integer greater than 1.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The above contested claim subject matter is broad in scope, and only requires a DCI that schedules, either one of:
i. multiple channel transmissions (which may include channel transmissions associated with a single channel/CC, or channel transmissions associated with different carriers/CCs), or
ii. multiple signal transmissions (which may include, signal transmissions via a single BWP/channel/CC, etc.).
The above claim subject matter also requires a terminal to actually perform the DCI-scheduled “transmissions.” The Examiner notes that the claimed “signal transmissions” may be reasonably interpreted to correspond to almost any type of consecutively-scheduled data transmissions, i.e., by TB/slot, etc.
Babaei achieves this by describing a UE receiving a scheduling DCI having multiple fields indicating BWPs of a cell and slot formats for scheduling multiple UE TB transmissions, and then performing multiple scheduled TB transmissions (Abstract and blocks 2730, 2740 and 2750 of Fig. 27 and Fig. 28). Babaei further teaches a UE that can receive a scheduling DCI and then perform logical channel prioritization to allocate resources of multiple transmission grants “jointly” to one or more of its logical channels, such that “resources of the one or more grants are allocated [at the UE] at substantially the same time,” for performing corresponding transmission at an allocated grant time (paras. [0185] and [0190]-[0191]). Babaei’s UE can also be configured by DCI format per serving cell and can transmit both PUCCH and PUSCH in a scheduled UL BWP (paras. [0194] and [0199]). Additionally, Babaei’s UE can be configured for transmissions over one or more BWP via a single DCI (paras. [0200], [0228]-[0229], and [0257]).
Thus, Babaei reads on the contested claim limitation: “wherein the DCI is used for scheduling …N signal transmissions of the terminal,” and “performing, by the terminal …N signal transmissions in accordance with the DCI.” Applicant’s arguments to the contrary are determined to be unconvincing.
Applicant also asserts that Babaei does not teach “a bit length of the information field for FDRA corresponds to a BWP having a largest bandwidth among the N active BWP,” and argues that neither He or Xu cure this deficiency. Applicant’s Remarks at pp. 17-20. However, the Examiner notes that this claim subject matter was only previously presented as an alternative, and was not examined on-the-merits. Instead, the alternative limitation of “a bit length of the information field for FDRA corresponds to a cumulative number of RBs of the N active BWPs,” as opposed to the claim subject matter at issue, was the alternative limitation examined and rejected based on He combined with Babaei, in the last Office Action.
However, based on Applicant’s amendment cancelling the alternative claim limitation which the He reference was last relied upon to reject, a new grounds of rejection (the combination of Wei with Babaei) has been applied to reject the newly-contested claim subject matter of: “a bit length of the information field for FDRA corresponds to a BWP having a largest bandwidth among the N active BWP.” As such, Applicant’s arguments against the references applied in the previous Office Action have been effectively been rendered moot. Applicant is therefore referred to the current rejection of independent claims 1, 14, 28, and 33, under §103, based on Wei and Babaei.
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 pp. 19-21. 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 1-2, 7, 9, 14-15, 20, 28, 33, 39, and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of US PG Pub. 2019/0149380 A1, Babaei et al. (hereinafter “Babaei”) in view of US PG Pub. 2023/0084494 A1, Wei et al. (hereinafter “Wei”).
With Respect to Claim 1, Babaei teaches:
A scheduling method, comprising:
receiving, by a terminal (wireless device 406 of Fig. 4), downlink control information (DCI) sent by a network-side device (base station 401 of Fig. 4), wherein the DCI is used for scheduling N channel or N signal transmissions of the terminal (paras. [0185]-[0187], [0190], [0273], [0288], and [0329]-[0330]; and block 2810 of Fig. 28 —a BS can transmit to a UE, DCI used for scheduling multiple UL/DL signal transmissions, i.e., grants, mapped to one or more cells/numerologies/BWPs —the alternative term “or” only requires examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative for the reasons explained above in the: Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section);
performing, by the terminal, N channel or N signal transmissions in accordance with the DCI (paras. [0199]-[0200], [0242], [0273], [0297], and [0318]; Fig. 21 and block 2810 of Fig. 28 —a UE can perform various UL/DL signal transmissions via indicated BWP(s), i.e., for RA, etc., in conjunction with one or more received DCI grants),
wherein N channels comprise N uplink physical channels or N downlink physical channels, and N signals comprise N uplink signals or N downlink signals, where N is an integer greater than 1 (paras. [0185]-[0187], [0273], and [0329]-[0331]; Figs. 2 and 8 —a BS can transmit to a UE, DCI used for scheduling multiple UL/DL signal transmissions mapped to one or more cells/numerologies/BWPs).
wherein at least one information field in the DCI satisfies at least one of the following: (the alternative terms “at least one of” and “or” only require examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative for the reasons explained above in the: Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section):
the at least one information field in the DCI comprises a first information field,
wherein the bit length of the first information field is the maximum length of the first information field that corresponds to one or more sets of configuration parameters, the first information field comprises an information field for frequency domain resource allocation (FDRA) (paras. [0185], [0190]-[0191], [0200], [0226]-[0229], and [0286]; and Figs. 17-18 and 21 —a DCI can include multiple information fields, one of which may be for resource allocation in the frequency domain, such as a BWP indicator field for resource allocation per BWP —different BWP sets (numbers of UL/DL BWPs) can be configured for different DCI format/scheduling types —the bit-length (number of bits) of the BWP indicator field can be associated with a maximum BW relating to a maximum number of BWPs indicated in a set of configurable BWPs, as depicted in Figs, 17-18);
wherein the one or more sets of configuration parameters comprise N pieces of BWP information of N active BWPs (paras. [0226]-[0229], [0257], [0319] and [0329] and Figs. 17-18 —multiple BWPs can be configured via the DCI BWP indicator field having a set of BWPs, as depicted in Figs. 17 and 18, and there can be multiple active BWPs scheduled at the same time, i.e., multiple active UL BWPs or an active UL/DL BWP pair);
or… (the alternative term “or” only requires examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative for the reasons explained above in the: Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
However, Babaei does not explicitly teach:
wherein, a bit length of the information field for FDRA corresponds to a BWP having a largest bandwidth among N active BWPs.
Wei does teach:
wherein, a bit length of the information field for FDRA corresponds to a BWP having a largest bandwidth among N active BWPs (paras. [0068]-[0069], [0083]-[0084], and [0101]-[0102]; and Figs. 5 and 7 —an FDRA bit size can correspond a determined widest active BWP BW, which the Examiner interprets to be equivalent toa a BWP having a largest BW among active BWPs);
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 Babaei’s DCI FDRA field bit length determination to correspond to a widest BWP, as taught by Wei.
The motivation for doing so would have been to limit/consolidate FDRA resource scheduling for independent BWPs capable of being scheduled, as recognized by Wei (paras. [0068]-[0069], [0083]-[0084], and [0101]-[0102]; and Figs. 5 and 7).
With respect to claim 2, Babaei in view of Wei teaches:
The scheduling method according to claim 1,
wherein the N channels are N channels on a same carrier, or, the N channels are channels on different carriers; or, the N signals are N signals on a same carrier, or the N signals are signals on different carriers (Babaei: paras. [0132], [0185]-[0187], [0273], and [0319]-[0320]; and Figs. 2 and 8 —a BS can transmit to a UE, DCI used for scheduling multiple UL/DL signal transmissions mapped to one or more network carriers, i.e., CCs).
With respect to claim 7, Babaei in view of Wei teaches the scheduling method according to claim 1, wherein the information field for the FDRA indicates FDRAs of the N active BWPs jointly (Babaei: paras. [0220], [0229], and [0330]-[0331] —the DCI FDRA field can be configured indicate a pair of active BWPs jointly, i.e., a pair of active DL/UL BWPs —the Examiner notes that He also teaches a joint DCI grant corresponding to multiple CCs).
With respect to claim 9, Babaei in view of Wei teaches:
The scheduling method according to claim 1,
wherein when transmission start positions of the N channels or N signals are before a reception time of the DCI, the terminal does not perform transmission of the N channels or the N signals (Babaei: paras. [0199]-[0200], [0242], [0273], [0297], and [0318]; and Figs. 21 and 28 —a UE can perform N UL signal transmissions via indicated BWP(s), based on received DCI grant(s), and therefore does not start transmission of N UL signals prior to receiving a scheduling DCI).
With respect to claim 14, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 14 is directed to an analogous scheduling method performed at the network-side device (Babaei: base station 401 of Fig. 4), as opposed to a terminal device. As such, claim 14 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Babaei in view of Wei, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 15, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 2. As such, claim 15 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Babaei in view of Wei, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 2.
With respect to claim 20, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 7. As such, claim 20 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Babaei in view of Wei, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 7.
With respect to claim 28, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 28 is directed to a terminal comprising a transceiver, a processor, and a memory storing a processor-executable program (Babaei: para. [0139]; and wireless device 406 having transceiver 407, processor 408, and memory 409 of Fig. 4). As such, claim 28 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Babaei in view of Wei, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 33, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 14, except claim 33 is directed to a network-side device comprising a transceiver, a processor, and a memory storing a processor-executable program (Babaei: para. [0139]; and base station 401 having transceiver 402, processor 403, and memory 404 of Fig. 4). As such, claim 33 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Babaei in view of Wei, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 14.
With respect to claim 39, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 2. As such, claim 39 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Babaei in view of Wei, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 2.
With respect to claim 41, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 7. As such, claim 41 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Babaei in view of Wei, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 7.
With respect to claim 42, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 2. As such, claim 42 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Babaei in view of Wei, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 2.
Claims 44-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Babaei in view of Wei, in further view of US PG Pub. 2021/0258999 A1, Xu et al. (hereinafter “Xu”).
With respect to claim 44, Babaei in view of Wei teach the scheduling method according to claim 1.
However, Babaei in view of Wei do not explicitly teach:
wherein when the bit length of the information field for TDRA corresponds to the total quantity of rows of the N TDRA tables, the information field for TDRA comprises N bit parts used for indicating entry indexes in the N TDRA tables respectively.
Xu does teach:
wherein when the bit length of the information field for TDRA corresponds to the total quantity of rows of the N TDRA tables, the information field for TDRA comprises N bit parts used for indicating entry indexes in the N TDRA tables respectively (paras. [0081]-[0083] and [0086]-[0089]; and Figs. 7 and 8 —a number of bits 730, i.e., a bit-length, of the TDRA field 705 can correspond to a total number of rows of each “N” TDRA table, the corresponding bit-parts thereof (i.e., of the number of bits 730) can correspond to a respective row index, 710 or 810/815, of multiple TDRA tables, 715 and 720).
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 Babaei in view of Wei’s DCI field bit length determination, to also consider TDRA field bit length determination relating to configured TDRA tables, as taught by Xu.
The motivation for doing so would have been to apply DCI field bit length consolidation to a TDRA field, as recognized by Xu (paras. [0081]-[0083] and [0086]-[0089]; and Figs. 7 and 8).
With respect to claim 45, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 44. As such, claim 45 is likewise rejected under §103, based on Babaei in view of Wei and Xu, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 44.
With respect to claim 46, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 44. As such, claim 46 is likewise rejected under §103, based on Babaei in view of Wei and Xu, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 44.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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