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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed on 06/08/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 25 regarding receiving a radio resource control (RRC) signal including a slot format configuration related to a slot format. The Examiner respectfully disagree, Kwak teaches, “a BS (e.g., gNB) can select (e.g., via processor(s) 510) a limited number of slot formats (e.g., from the K possible slot formats or some predefined subset thereof) for potential use within that cell and can configure that set of slot formats or a set of combinations for slot formats for the group of UEs via higher layer signaling, for example, via system information or RRC (Radio Resource Control) signaling” see para. 74; for further clarification “the UE can assume a particular (e.g., default) slot format, which can either be pre-determined (e.g., in a specification) or can be configured by higher layer (e.g., via system information or RRC generated by processor(s) 510, transmitted via communication circuitry 520, received via transceiver circuitry 420, and processed by processor(s) 410)” see para. 75, Figs. 4-5. The examiner notes that Kwak describes a UE (see Fig. 4) having a configuration to operate being sent by the base station (see Fig. 5) via an RRC signal including the slot format configuration, therefore the examiner equates the Kwak slot format as the claimed subject matter. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would clearly understand Kwak to teach this concept. Thus, Kwak still meet the scope of the limitations.
B. Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 25 regarding wherein the slot format configuration provides a number X of downlink symbols and a number Y of uplink symbols. The Examiner respectfully disagree, Kwak teaches, “a DCI (Downlink Control Information) message that indicates at least the slot format related information, from which the UE can derive (e.g., via processor(s) 410) at least which symbols in a slot are DL, UL, or other symbols, wherein the other symbols can be flexible symbols that can be employed”, see para. 70. The Examiner respectfully disagree, Kwak teach, “for defining slot format related information, the most flexible technique can be to explicitly indicate the transmission direction, as one of four (e.g., DL, UL, BL (Blank), or SL (Sidelink)) or three (e.g., DL, UL, or other (which can be employed as a flexible symbol for options such as SL or BL)) options, for each symbol in a NR slot. Referring to FIG. 7, illustrated is a diagram showing example combinations for slot formats where each symbol can be one of DL, UL, BL, or SL” see para. 73, Fig. 7. The Examiner notes that Kwak clearly identify that the slot format can be conceived in several alternatives for each symbol being configured, the claim identify a value X and a value Y for downlink and uplink symbols, respectively, which is being equate by the slot format of Kwak as being displayed on Fig. 7, where it shows several examples of the claimed subject matter as per format 1: it shows all are downlink symbols and zero uplink, and as per format K: it shows only one being a downlink symbol and the rest being used for uplink. The examiner also notes that the applicant argues that X and Y might be values as constants but Kwak sends a signal indicating which symbols as DL and which ones are UL and might send extra information to indicate that there is not other configuration needed, as shown in Fig. 7, clearly Kwak can perform signaling a configuration field via RRC, indicating the format of each of the symbols by being type, position and/or amount as it is well known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would clearly understand that the flexibility of formatting the slot by modifying each symbol to explicitly indicate the transmission direction related by Kwak, meets the scope of the limitations.
C. Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 25 regarding wherein the slot format is configured in an order of zero or more downlink symbols, one or more flexible symbols and zero or more uplink symbols, and the one or more flexible symbols are identified based on X and Y. The Examiner respectfully disagree, Kwak teach, “a DCI (Downlink Control Information) message that indicates at least the slot format related information, from which the UE can derive (e.g., via processor(s) 410) at least which symbols in a slot are DL, UL, or other symbols, wherein the other symbols can be flexible symbols that can be employed”, see para. 70. The examiner respectfully disagrees since in the applicant’s claim 25 there is no defined flexible symbols, in fact the Applicant defines that flexible symbols is “wherein the flexible symbol means a symbol whose purpose can be re-designated to downlink (DL), uplink (UL) or flexible according to the slot configuration information of the PDCCH” (applicant’s specification para. 6). Therefore, giving broadest reasonable interpretation (see MPEP 2111) to the claim language in particular to the applicant’s “flexible symbols” definition that these symbols are what it is left over to re-arrange or defined according to the communication configuration needed, but the important consideration is those are determined based on the initially configured as X (number of downlink symbols) and Y (number of uplink symbols) previously identified by the UE from the configuration message received. Furthermore Kwak clearly exposes this concept of identifying the number of DL and UL symbols disclosing the actual standard: “In an example such as shown in FIG. 7 wherein each symbol can be one of the 4 possible transmission directions (DL, UL, BL, or SL) and a slot consists of 14 symbols (e.g., OFDM (Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing) symbols or OFDM-based symbols)”, see para. 73. The Examiner further notes and equates the configuration by the slot format of Kwak as being displayed on Fig. 7, where it shows several examples of the claimed subject matter as per format 1: it shows all are downlink symbols and zero uplink, and as per format K: it shows only one being a downlink symbol and the rest being used for uplink, and it also includes a blank slot not being used, which shows preconceived determination of a flexible configuration according with the intended used needed for transmission in multiple possible configurations (Fig. 7). The examiner interprets the standard applied to a scenario that applies to the concept claimed based on Kwak disclosure: For example Kwak is defining a possible configuration that in a slot of 14 symbols, the first 3 symbols being identified as DOWLINK and the next 3 symbols are identified as UPLINK, then the UE derive from the configuration that out of 14 possible at least symbols 6 are clearly identified and the resting 8 symbols can be employed or reassigned despite configured or not, but this number of symbols (the rest out of the total, not including the assigned as DL and UL) will always depend on the initial configuration of Downlink and Uplink symbols already selected by this structure, that means the maximum of 14 symbols minus (X plus Y) symbols, since X and Y are both included, equals the possible flexible symbols, which it is well disclosed by Kwak; therefore one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would clearly understand, that Kwak teach this concept of flexible symbols identified based on X and Y. Thus, Kwak still meet the scope of the limitations.
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.
Claim(s) 25-26, 29-34 and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak et al. (U.S. Pub. 20190349904) in view of Qualcomm “View on group common PDCCH”; 3GPP TSG-RAN WG1#88, February 13th - 18th, 2017; R1-1702626, hereafter “Qualcomm”.
Regarding claim 33 Kwak disclose a method for use by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
receiving a radio resource control (RRC) signal including a slot format configuration related to a slot format para. 74, “a BS (e.g., gNB) can select (e.g., via processor(s) 510) a limited number of slot formats (e.g., from the K possible slot formats or some predefined subset thereof) for potential use within that cell and can configure that set of slot formats or a set of combinations for slot formats for the group of UEs via higher layer signaling, for example, via system information or RRC (Radio Resource Control) signaling”,
wherein the slot format configuration provides a number X of downlink symbols and a number Y of uplink symbols para. 70, “a DCI (Downlink Control Information) message that indicates at least the slot format related information, from which the UE can derive (e.g., via processor(s) 410) at least which symbols in a slot are DL, UL, or other symbols, wherein the other symbols can be flexible symbols that can be employed”, and
wherein the slot format is configured in an order of zero or more downlink symbols one or more flexible symbols and zero or more uplink symbols, and the one or more flexible symbols are identified based on X and Y para. 70, “a DCI (Downlink Control Information) message that indicates at least the slot format related information, from which the UE can derive (e.g., via processor(s) 410) at least which symbols in a slot are DL, UL, or other symbols, wherein the other symbols can be flexible symbols that can be employed”, see para. 70. In claim 25 there is no defined flexible symbols, in fact the Applicant defines that flexible symbols is “wherein the flexible symbol means a symbol whose purpose can be re-designated to downlink (DL), uplink (UL) or flexible according to the slot configuration information of the PDCCH” (applicant’s specification para. 6). Furthermore Kwak clearly exposes this concept of identifying the number of DL and UL symbols by disclosing the actual standard: “In an example such as shown in FIG. 7 wherein each symbol can be one of the 4 possible transmission directions (DL, UL, BL, or SL) and a slot consists of 14 symbols (e.g., OFDM (Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing) symbols or OFDM-based symbols)”, see para. 73. The examiner interprets the standard scenario that still applies to the concept claimed based on Kwak disclosure: For example Kwak is defining a possible configuration that in a slot of 14 symbols, the first 3 symbols being identified as as DOWLINK and the next 3 symbols are identified as UPLINK, then the UE derive from the configuration that out of 14 possible at least symbols 6 are clearly identified and the resting 8 symbols can be employed or reassigned despite configured or not, but this number of symbols (the rest out of the total, not including the assigned as DL and UL) will always depend on the initial configuration of Downlink and Uplink symbols already selected by this structure, that means the maximum of 14 symbols minus (X plus Y) symbols, since X and Y are both included, equals the possible flexible symbols, which it is well disclosed by Kwak;
monitoring a group common physical downlink control channel (GC-PDCCH) including a slot format information para. 110, “for slot(s) that the UE is configured to monitor for the common control channel (e.g., group common PDCCH)”, Kwak also notes that “the slot format indication (SFI) carried in the group common PDCCH”.
Kwak do not specifically disclose, when a set of symbols on which the UE is configured by a higher layer to receive a downlink signal is within the one or more flexible symbols configured by the RRC signal, selectively performing a reception of the downlink signal based on. However, Qualcomm teach, “Slot format related information, Information from which the UE can derive at least which symbols in a slot that are ‘DL’, ‘UL’ (for Rel-15), and ‘other’, respectively”, see section 1, Agreement, Qualcomm further teach, 1) whether the GC-PDCCH is detected by the UE and 2) whether the slot format information indicates the set of symbols as downlink, if the GC-PDCCH is detected by the UE, section 1, Agreement, “When monitoring for a PDCCH, the UE should be able to process a detected PDCCH irrespective of whether the ‘group common PDCCH’ is received or not”.
Kwak and Qualcomm are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to transmission configuration and parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Qualcomm in the system of Kwak to be able to dynamically configure and modify the control signaling to allow the user equipments to process and detect the presence of specific configuration to its PDCCH. The motivation for doing so would have been add flexibility to the uplink/downlink configuration on the network for one or more user terminals.
Regarding claim 34 Kwak disclose, wherein the reception of the downlink signal is canceled on the set of symbols when the GC-PDCCH is not detected by the UE para. 76, “when the UE does not detect (e.g., via processor(s) 410 and transceiver circuitry 420) the group common PDCCH (e.g., whether it is or is not generated by processor(s) 510 and transmitted by communication circuitry 520) for a slot, or the group common PDCCH signaling is not present in higher layers, the UE can assume a particular (e.g., default) slot format, which can either be pre-determined (e.g., in a specification) or can be configured by higher layer (e.g., via system information or RRC generated by processor(s) 510”.
Regarding claim 37 Kwak disclose, wherein the downlink signal includes a periodic downlink signal. However, Kwak teach, para. 76, “In some aspects, the group common PDCCH (e.g., generated by processor(s) 510) can be transmitted (e.g., by communication circuitry 520) periodically in the time domain”.
Regarding claim 38 Kwak do not specifically disclose, wherein the downlink signal includes a channel status information reference signal (CSI-RS). However, Qualcomm teach “This is to provide blanking capability for periodic DL/UL control signaling such as CSI-RS”, section 3.
Kwak and Qualcomm are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to transmission configuration and parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Qualcomm in the system of Kwak to be able to dynamically configure and modify the control signaling to allow the user equipment to analyze the channel. The motivation for doing so would have been to help the UE measure the radio channel's quality.
Regarding claim 39 Kwak disclose, wherein the higher layer includes a RRC layer para. 75, “that cell and can configure that set of slot formats or a set of combinations for slot formats for the group of UEs (e.g., some or all UEs in a cell) via higher layer signaling (e.g., generated by processor(s) 510, transmitted via communication circuitry 520, received via transceiver circuitry 420, and processed by processor(s) 410), for example, via system information or RRC (Radio Resource Control) signaling”.
Regarding claim 40 Kwak disclose, wherein the RRC signal including slot format configuration is a cell-specific signal or a user-specific signal para. 114, “which can be based on distributed Tx that applies a frequency domain cell-specific cyclic shifts to the REGs or to the starting REG-bundle”.
Claim 25 recites an apparatus comprising a processor read as: “processors 410” see para. 63, corresponding to the method of claim 33 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 33.
Regarding claims 26,29-32, the limitations of claim 26,29-32, respectively, are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claims 34,37-40.
Claim(s) 27-28 and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak et al. (U.S. Pub. 20190349904) in view of Qualcomm “View on group common PDCCH”; 3GPP TSG-RAN WG1#88, February 13th - 18th, 2017; R1-1702626, hereafter “Qualcomm”, further in view Nogami et al. (U.S. Pub. 20180220400).
Regarding claim 35 Kwak and Qualcomm do not disclose, wherein the reception of the downlink signal is canceled on the set of symbols when the slot format information indicates the set of symbols as flexible or uplink, if the GC-PDCCH is detected by the UE. Howerver, Nogami teach, “If the UE 102 detects the group-common PDCCH in slot i, and the UE 102 has received prior to slot i a PDCCH which schedules either PDSCH reception, CSI-RS reception, PUSCH transmission or SRS transmission in slot i, the UE 102 may drop the PDSCH reception”, see para. 318.
Kwak, Qualcomm and Nogami are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to transmission configuration and parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Nogami in the system of Kwak and Qualcomm to be able to dynamically configure and modify the control signaling to allow the user equipments to process and detect the presence of specific configuration to its PDCCH. The motivation for doing so would have been add flexibility to the uplink/downlink configuration on the network for one or more user terminals.
Regarding claim 36 Kwak and Qualcomm do not disclose, wherein the reception of the downlink signal is performed on the set of symbols when the slot format information indicates the set of symbols as downlink, if the GC-PDCCH is detected by the UE. Howerver, Nogami teach, “If the UE 102 detects the group-common PDCCH in slot i, and the UE 102 has received prior to slot i a PDCCH which schedules either PDSCH reception, CSI-RS reception, PUSCH transmission or SRS transmission in slot I”, para. 318, the scheduling is being selected according to the prior configuration and the transmission/reception of the signal is associated with the type of resources configurated.
Kwak, Qualcomm and Nogami are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to transmission configuration and parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Nogami in the system of Kwak and Qualcomm to be able to dynamically configure and modify the control signaling to allow the user equipments to process and detect the presence of specific configuration to its PDCCH. The motivation for doing so would have been add flexibility to the uplink/downlink configuration on the network for one or more user terminals.
Regarding claims 27-28 the limitations of claims 27-28, respectively, are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claims 35-36, respectively.
Conclusion
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 RAUL RIVAS whose telephone number is (571)270–5590. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, from 8:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Sujoy K. Kundu, can be reached on (571) 272 - 8586. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571–273–8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800–786–9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571–272–1000.
/RR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights