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 05/07/2026 communications in the application of Choi et al. for the "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DOWNLINK CONTROL INFORMATION INTERPRETATION IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM" filed 04/10/2023. This application claims foreign priority to 10-2022-0043926, filed 04/08/2022; claims foreign priority to 10-2022-0043945, filed 04/08/2022; claims foreign priority to 10-2022-0150953, filed 11/11/2022 filed in Korea. This application is a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 37 C.F.R. 1.114 filed on 05/07/2026. Claims 1, 18-20, 22-24, 26-28, 30-31 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 Objections
3. Claims 24, 28 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites the clause with the optional language “configured to”. In order to present the claim in a better form and to describe a positive or require steps/function to be performing (i.e. using the claim language that does not suggest or make optionally but required steps to be performed), applicant is suggested to revise the claim language such that the steps/functions, which follows “configured to”, to be performed are required (not optional). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103 and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103.
6. Claims 1, 20, 24, 28- are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chatterjee et al. (US#11,025,456) in view of Khoshnevisan et al. (US#2021/0143869).
Regarding claims 24, 28, the references disclose a novel method and system for DCI interpretation including TDRA in wireless communications, according to the essential features of the claims. Chatterjee et al. (US#11,025,456) discloses a UE/BS in a wireless communication system, comprising: a transceiver; and a controller (see Fig. 4 for the device structure includes transmit/receive interface 450, controller 435) configured to: receive/transmit, from a BS/to the UE, time domain resource assignment (TDRA) information for multiple cells (Figs. 1, 9; Col. 2, lines 9-35 & Col. 71, lines 9-32: At operation 921, the UE 101 determines the TDRA parameters included in the TDRA. At operation 924, the UE 101 adds the TDRA to a corresponding record (or row) in a TDRA table where each TDRA parameter is associated to a respective TDRA field (or column) in the TDRA table), receive/transmit, from the BS/to the UE, downlink control information (DCI) including a TDRA field and an antenna port field for scheduling PDSCH of the multiple cells (Figs. 1, 11; Col. 2, lines 9-35; Col. 17, line 59 to Col. 18, line 12 & Col. 72, lines 31-41: At operation 1109, the RAN node 111 generates a DCI to at least include a time domain resource assignment field to indicate a row index of the allocation table configured at operations 1103-1106. At operation 1112, the RAN node 111 transmits the DCI to the UE 101, which is then decoded by the UE 101).
However, Chatterjee et al. does not disclose expressly wherein a first scheme being used for the antenna port field, applying a value of the antenna port field to the multiple cells independently; and apply a first bit field of the antenna port field to a first cell of the multiple cells and a second bit field of the antenna port field to a second cell of the multiple cells. In the same field of endeavor, Khoshnevisan et al. (US#2021/0143869) teaches in Figs. 5-6 diagrams illustrated indications of multi-TRP schemes and/or parameters for multi-TCI state communication, in which a size of an antenna port field of the DCI may be based at least in part on the set of multi-TRP schemes (e.g., a larger antenna port field may be used when more multi-TRP schemes are enabled). In some aspects, a size of the antenna port field of the DCI may be independent from the set of multi-TRP schemes. The communication may be associated with a single TCI state or multiple TCI states. A communication associated with multiple TCI states may be referred to as a multi-TCI state communication. (para [0066], [0086]: applying antenna port field value to the multiple cells).
Regarding claims 1 & 20, they are method claims corresponding to the apparatus claims 24 & 28 discussed above. Therefore, claims 1 & 20 are analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 24 & 28 above.
Thus, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Khoshnevisan’s signaling for multi-transmit-receive point (multi-TRP) schemes into Chatterjee’s time domain resource allocation for mobile communication with the motivation being to provide a method and system for downlink control information interpretation in wireless communication system.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 18-19, 22-23, 26-27, 30-31 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objection set forth above, and in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
8. 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 in case that the first scheme is used for the antenna port field, a number of bits for the antenna port field is determined based on a maximum number of bits for multiple antenna port tables for the multiple cells, wherein, in case that the second scheme is used for the antenna port field, a number
of bits for the antenna port field is determined based on a sum of a number of bits for each
of the multiple antenna port tables for the multiple cells, and wherein the DCI further includes information for identifying the multiple cells; wherein receiving, from the base station, another DCI including another TDRA field, another antenna port field and a phase tracking reference signal (PTRS) - demodulation reference signal (DMRS) related field for scheduling physical uplink shared channels of the multiple cells, wherein the PTRS - DMRS related field comprises a first bit field for a first cell of the multiple cells and a second bit field for a second cell of the multiple cells, and wherein a size of the first bit field is 2 bits and a size of the second bit field is 2 bits, as specifically recited in the claims.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Yi et al. (US#2024/0032031) is cited to show hybrid automatic repeat request codebook determination for multi physical downlink shared channel scheduling.
The Xu et al. (US#12,028,293) shows scell dormancy indication by PDCCH.
The Lee et al. (US#2022/0232403) shows method and apparatus for transmitting/ receiving wireless signal in wireless communication system.
The Choi et al. (US#2023/0155747) shows method and apparatus for multiple PSCCH scheduling in wireless communication systems.
The Lee et al. (US#12,256,404) shows method and apparatus for configuring beam in wireless communication system.
The Jang et al. (US#2022/0394742) shows method and apparatus for data transmission in network cooperative communications.
The Liang et al. (US#11,470,590) shows time domain resource allocation and determination method and apparatus, BS, terminal, and storage medium.
The Liu et al. (US#2024/0114521) shows UE, BS and methods.
The Zhang et al. (US#2024/0236973) shows wireless communication methods.
The Gu et al. (US#2024/0023184) shows beam failure recovery method, apparatus, and readable storage medium.
The Kim et al. (US#2025/0133584) shows method for transmitting data or control information having high reliability conditions, and device therefor.
10. 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. "
11. 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.
12. 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
06/15/2026
/MAN U PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights