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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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: 12/05/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the claims filed on: 12/05/2025
Claims 1-2, 7, 9, 14-15, 20, 28, 33, 39, 41-42, and 44-46 are pending for Examination.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 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.
Claim Objections
Each of claims 1, 14, 28, and 33 were objected to in the previous Office Action. These claim objections have been obviated by Applicant’s corrective claim amendments. As such, the corresponding objections to claims 1, 14, 28, and 33, are hereby withdrawn.
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 12/05/2025, with respect to the amended claims have been considered but are determined not to be persuasive. Specifically, Applicant has amended each of its independent claims to recite features related to a first information field in a DCI corresponding to either:
1. an FDRA field, or 2. an TDRA field, but not both at the same time.
These two alternatives can be interpreted to correspond to different embodiments, with respect to the same claimed “first information field.” In terms of the amended independent claims, the Examiner has elected to examine the FDRA alternative for each of independent claims 1, 14, 28, and 33.
A new grounds of rejection has been applied in the instant Office Action to reject each of these claims under §103, based on Babaei in view of He. As such, Applicant’s arguments asserted against the previous rejection of the independent claims under §102, based on Xu, has been effectively rendered moot, as 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 arguments.
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. 19-23. 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-2, 7, 9, 14-15, 20, 28, 33, 39, 41-42, and 44-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor(s) regard as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, at line 12, the claim recites: “…the bit length of the first information field…” (Emphasis added). However, claim 1 does not previously recite: “a bit length of the first information field….” As such, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term: “the bit length of the first information field…,” in claim 1. When introducing claim elements for the first time, words such as “said” and “the” will invoke antecedent basis issues under §112(b). Applicant should amend claim 1 to instead recite: “…a bit length of the first information field…,” to cure this deficiency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 14, 28, and 33, these independent claims each recite the same problematic claim language indicated above for claim 1, and are therefore likewise rejected under §112(b) based on lack of antecedent basis. Applicant should amend each of claims 14, 28, and 33, in a similar manner to that indicated for claim 1, to cure the noted deficiency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding the dependent claims, each of these claims is also rejected under §112(b) based on lack of antecedent basis through dependency. As such, curing the noted deficiency for each of independent claims 1, 14, 28, and 33, will also cure/obviate the corresponding rejections of their respective dependent claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 41-42, and 44-46 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 Patent 12,206,603 B2, He et al. (hereinafter “He”).
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, or, the bit lengths of the information field for FDRA corresponds to a cumulative number of RBs of the N active BWPs.
He does teach:
wherein, a bit length of the information field for FDRA corresponds to a cumulative number of RBs of the N active BWPs (col. 12, lines 57-67, col. 14, ln. 37 to col. 15, ln. 17; and Figs 11-12 —a bit-length of the FDRA field of a multi-CC scheduling DCI for multiple BWs can be based on a cumulative number of PRBs of active CC BWPs, such as where CC1 BW = 100 PRBs and CC2 BW = 50 PRBs, which when aggregated equals 150RBs —the alternative term “or” only requires examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative for the reasons explained 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 Babaei’s DCI FDRA field bit length determination to consider aggregating CC BW PRBs as part of the determining, as taught by He.
The motivation for doing so would have been to consolidate FDRA resource scheduling for multiple carriers having independently active BWPs capable of being simultaneously scheduled, as recognized by He (col. 12, lines 57-67, and col. 14, ln. 37 to col. 15, ln. 17; and Figs. 11-12).
With respect to claim 2, Babaei in view of He 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 He 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 He 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 He, 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 Hu, 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 Hu, 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 Hu, 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 Hu, 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 Hu, 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 Hu, 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 Hu, 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 He, in further view of US PG Pub. 2021/0258999 A1, Xu et al. (hereinafter “Xu”).
With respect to claim 44, Babaei in view of He teach the scheduling method according to claim 1.
However, Babaei in view of He 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 He’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 He 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 He and Xu, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 44.
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