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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
1. This communication is in response to Applicant’s 12/30/2025 communications in the application of Lei for the "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR RESOURCE ALLOCATION FOR CARRIER AGGREGATION" filed 02/07/2023. This application is a National Stage entry of PCT/CN2020/107799, International Filing Date: 08/07/2020. This application is a
Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 37 C.F.R. 1.114 filed on 12/30/2025. Claims 39-58 are pending in the application.
2. The applicant should use this period for response to thoroughly and very closely proof read and review the whole of the application for correct correlation between reference numerals in the textual portion of the Specification and Drawings along with any minor spelling errors, general typographical errors, accuracy, assurance of proper use for Trademarks TM, and other legal symbols @, where required, and clarity of meaning in the Specification, Drawings, and specifically the claims (i.e., provide proper antecedent basis for “the'' and “said'' within each
claim). Minor typographical errors could render a Patent unenforceable and so the applicant is
strongly encouraged to aid in this endeavor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 39-42, 44-52, 54-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al. (US#2018/0115965) in view of Takeda et al. (US#11,706,774) and further in view of Hosseini et al. (US#10,638,469).
Regarding claims 39, 54, the references disclose an apparatus for network support for resource allocation for multiple PDSCHs, according to the essential features of the claims. Takeda et al. (US#2018/0115965) discloses an apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (see Figs. 7-10 for the structure of BS/UE includes transmit/receive circuitry, control processor) and configured to cause the apparatus to: receive/transmit a signaling for configuring a first set of carriers; determine a payload size of a downlink control information (DCI) format based on a maximum number of carriers scheduled by the DCI format (Figs. 1-2, 6; para [0006]-[0010], [0063]: DCI format to support cross-carrier scheduling of a plurality of component carriers, and the total payload of a group DCI generally increases as the number of component carriers increases); and receive/transmit the DCI format based on the determined payload size of the DCI format, wherein the DCI format includes a field that indicates a second set of carriers allocated for transmitting data, wherein the second set of carriers is a subset of the first set of carriers (Fig. 3B; para [0010], [0033]: new DCI format is comprised of an information field that is common for a plurality of component carriers, and information fields that are component carrier-specific. The component carrier-common information field contains common scheduling control information for a plurality of component carriers. The component carrier-specific information fields contain unique scheduling control information for each component carrier).
However, Takeda et al. (US#2018/0115965) reference does not disclose expressly wherein the second set of carriers is a subset of the first set of carriers. In the same field of endeavor, Takeda et al. (US#11,706,774) discloses in Fig. 2 a block diagram illustrated a DCI for scheduling multiple component carriers, wherein receiving the DCI comprises: receiving an indication of a subset of component carriers from the group of component carriers, the subset of component carriers comprising the two or more component carriers, wherein transmitting or receiving the plurality of data transmissions over the two or more component carriers is based at least in part on receiving the indication of the subset of component carriers (Col. 3; lines 17-32 & Col. 17, lines 42-67: second set of carriers is a subset of the first set of carriers).
Takeda et al. (US#2018/0115965) in view of Takeda et al. (US#11,706,774) does not discloses expressly wherein receiving a DCI format based on a determined payload size of the DCI format. In the same field of endeavor, Hosseini et al. (US#10,638,469) teaches in Fig. 2 a block diagram illustrated an example of a wireless communications system 200 that supports data transmission in a PDCCH, in which determining a payload size of a DCI format including the DCI payload; and decoding the data communications based at least in part on the determined payload size and an aggregation level of the DCI format (Col. 4; lines 23-48 & Col. 7; lines 9-19; Col. 17, lines 15-51: an aggregation level may be fixed based on a payload size of a DCI payload).
Regarding claims 40, 41, 55, 56, the reference further teaches wherein receive/transmit the data on the second set of carriers (Takeda et al #2018/0115965: Figs. 8-9; para [0090]-[0092], [0096]).
Regarding claim 42, the reference further teaches wherein the field indicates an index of a starting carrier and a number of the second set of carriers, wherein the second set of carriers are contiguous (Takeda et al #2018/0115965: para [0040], [0057], [0068]).
Regarding claim 44, the reference further teaches wherein the field indicates a bitmap, and each bit in the bitmap corresponds to a carrier of the first set of carriers (Takeda et al #2018/0115965: para [0039]-[0041]).
Regarding claim 45, the reference further teaches wherein the field indicates the second set of carriers by a carrier group (Takeda et al #2018/0115965: Fig. 1A; para [0025]).
Regarding claims 46, 57, the reference further teaches wherein receive/transmit radio resource control (RRC) signaling configuring a list of carriers combination (Takeda et al #2018/0115965: Fig. 10; para [0010], [0103]; see also Takeda et al. #11,706,774: Fig.3; Col. 18, line 55 to Col. 19, line 14).
Regarding claim 47, the reference further teaches wherein a total number of a BWP indicator equals to zero, one, or the maximum number of carriers scheduled by the DCI format (Takeda et al. #11,706,774: Fig. 1; Col. 12; lines 18-36).
Regarding claim 48, the reference further teaches wherein the DCI format includes a single frequency resource allocation indication and each of the second set of carriers has same resource block indices in a frequency domain (Takeda et al. #11,706,774: Fig. 7; Col. 25; lines 44-64).
Regarding claim 49, the reference further teaches wherein a total number of new data indicator (NDI) bits in the DCI format equals to the maximum number of carriers scheduled by the DCI format (Takeda et al. #2018/0115965: Fig. 3A, 4A, 5A; para [0031], [0034]).
Regarding claim 50, the reference further teaches wherein a total number of redundancy version (RV) fields in the DCI format equals to the maximum number of carriers scheduled by the DCI format (Takeda et al. #2018/0115965: Fig. 3A, 4A, 5A; para [0031], [0034]).
Regarding claim 51, the reference further teaches wherein a total number of modulation and coding scheme (MCS) fields in the DCI format equals to the maximum number of carriers scheduled by the DCI format (Takeda et al. #2018/0115965: Fig. 3A, 4A, 5A; para [0031], [0034]).
Regarding claim 52, the reference further teaches wherein the DCI format includes a single hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process number field (Takeda et al. #11,706,774: Fig. 7; Col. 26; lines 29-39).
Regarding claim 58, it is method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 39 examined above. Therefore, claim 58 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed in paragraph above with respect to claim 39.
One skilled in the art would have recognized the need for effectively and efficiently support of resource allocation for multiple PDSCHs, and would have applied Takeda’s downlink control information (DCI) for scheduling multiple component carriers into Takeda’s radio communication method in next-generation mobile communication systems utilizing group DCI that contains scheduling control information for a plurality of component carriers. Therefore, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to apply Takeda’s DCI for scheduling multiple component carriers into Takeda’s user terminal, radio BS, radio communication system and radio communication method with the motivation being to provide a method and system for resource allocation in carrier aggregation.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 43, 53 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
6. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest wherein the second set of carriers are contiguous, and wherein the field indicates a total number of the second set of carriers, and wherein a starting carrier of the second set of carriers is a carrier where the DCI format is received; wherein the DCI format includes a single time domain resource allocation (TDRA) field and the data on each of the second set of carriers is transmitted with same starting symbol index and same number of contiguous symbols, as specifically recited in the claims.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Takeda et al. (US#11,877,292) shows techniques for activating and releasing resources across multiple component carriers.
The Lei et al. (US#9,955,501) shows scheduling enhancement in wireless communication.
The Guan et al. (US#9,407,412) shows method, apparatus and system for receiving and sending scheduling information.
The Shen et al. (US#11,271,675) shows method of DCI detection, transmission, terminal and network device.
The Gao et al. (US#10,721,028) shows wireless communication method and wireless communication device.
The He et al. (US#9,955,465) shows DCI design for LTE devices.
The Liao et al. (US#2018/0317207) shows method of efficient DCI transmission.
The Desai et al. (US#10,264,564) shows system and method for resource allocation for massive carrier aggregation.
The Kim et al. (US#9,237,555) shows method and device for configuring a carrier indication field for a multi-carrier.
The Takeda et al. (US#2022/0124713) shows resource allocation and HARQ ACK feedback for multi-cell scheduling.
The Gurelli et al. (US#11,968,681) shows resource allocation for piggyback DCI.
8. Applicant's future amendments need to comply with the requirements of MPEP § 714.02, MPEP § 2163.04 and MPEP § 2163.06.
"with respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims." See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should * * * specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). See In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262,191 USPQ at 96 (emphasis added). "The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification." Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm'r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01 (i) and § 1302.01.
Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner's amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1,75(d)(1 ). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced."
"USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2106. "
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. Phan whose telephone number is (571) 272-3149. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri from 6:00 to 3:00.
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, Chirag Shah, can be reached on (571) 272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
10. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at toll free 1-866-217-9197.
Mphan
02/04/2026
/MAN U PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477