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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/08/2026 has been entered.
Other prior art
US-20230217458 [0193] In this case, the generation and size of the DCI field may be configured or changed through higher layer signaling for multiple cell scheduling configuration
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 12, 23, 28 have been considered but are moot because 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 argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Independent Claims
Claim(s) 1, 12, 23, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US-20180227885) in view of Olesen (EP-2765730-A2), Ahn (US-20180123766).
As to claim 1, 12, 23, 28: Lee teaches a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to: … ; receive a multi-cell scheduling downlink control information (DCI) communication including a co-scheduled cell indicator field that indicates a codepoint of the one or more codepoints, the codepoint indicating one or more cells that are scheduled by the DCI communication (fig.5, [0078, 84-86] DCI with N-bit map); and identify one or more bitwidths of one or more portions of a field of the DCI communication (fig.5, [0085-94] in a situation that the number of CCs/cells capable of being scheduled by the mCC-DCI at specific timing is set to N, it may define a rule that maximum K numbers of CCs/cells are scheduled by the mCC-DCI at the same time), each bitwidth of the one or more bitwidths corresponding to a respective cell of the one or more cells, based at least in part on a configuration of the co-scheduled cell indicator field ([0085-87] An N-bit bitmap can be included in mCC-DCI. The bitmap can indicate CC/cell(s). For example, if a CC/cell is indicated by a value (i.e., 1) of the bitmap, a UE may consider it as the CC/cell is scheduled by the mCC-DCI; if it is able to configure specific scheduling information of mCC-DCI up to maximum K number of CCs/cells, it may be able to include a field configured by P bits to indicate the CCs/cells. The P can be expressed using equation described in the following),
Lee may not explicitly teach receive, using radio resource control (RRC) signaling, configuration information indicating a list of one or more codepoints, wherein each codepoint of the one or more codepoints indicates a respective subset of a configured set of cells. However, Olesen teaches receive, using radio resource control (RRC) signaling ([0067] For example, mapping of CSI reporting may be signaled via dedicated signaling or a higher layer signaling, such as RRC signaling.), configuration information indicating a list of one or more codepoints, wherein each codepoint of the one or more codepoints indicates a respective subset of a configured set of cells ([0084, 86] mapping between indication and the DL serving cell or set of DL serving cells may be provided by higher layers, DL serving cell may be directly indicated via the CIF field).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement RRC signaling, taught by Olesen, into the communication system, taught by Lee, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and reduce signaling overhead and enable switching of cells. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Lee and Olesen in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Lee may not explicitly teach wherein each bitwidth of the one or more bitwidths is based on a quantity of the one or more cells. However, Ahn teaches wherein each bitwidth of the one or more bitwidths is based on a quantity of the one or more cells ([0063] A plurality of periodic CSI reports can independently be configured for a plurality of serving cells. A CSI payload size in a specific subframe may vary according to a CSI configuration of each serving cell and a number of serving cells).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement payload size commensurate with number of serving cells, taught by Ahn, into the communication system, taught by Lee, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable dynamic multi-cell operation. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Ahn and Lee in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Dependent Claims
Claim(s) 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US-20180227885) in view of Olesen (EP-2765730-A2), Ahn (US-20180123766).
As to claim 2, 13, 24: Lee teaches the UE of claim 1, 23, wherein the field includes at least one of a frequency domain resource allocation field, a modulation and coding scheme field, a new data indicator field, or a redundancy version field ([0091]).
As to claim 3, 14, 25, 29: Lee teaches the UE of claim 1, 23, 28, wherein the one or more processors, to identify the one or more bitwidths, are configured to identify a necessary quantity of bits for the field in connection with the co-scheduled cell indicator field indicating a set of cells, of potential sets of cells that can be indicated by the co-scheduled cell indicator field, that maximizes the bitwidth (fig.5, [0085-94] size of scheduling information based on maximum number of co-scheduled cells).
As to claim 4, 15, 26: Lee teaches the UE of claim 3, 25, wherein, if the co-scheduled cell indicator field indicates a first set of cells, of the potential sets of cells, a first quantity of bits is associated with the field (fig.5, [0088-94] N bit map for co-scheduled cells), and wherein, if the co-scheduled cell indicator field indicates a second set of cells, of the potential sets of cells, a second quantity of bits, different from the first quantity of bits, is associated with the field (fig.5, [0088-94] N bit map for co-scheduled cells).
As to claim 5, 16, 27: Lee teaches the UE of claim 4, 26, wherein the first set of cells corresponds to the set of cells that maximizes the one or more biwidths, and wherein the second quantity of bits is less than the first quantity of bits (fig.5, [0088-94] different size fields).
As to claim 6, 17: Lee teaches the UE of claim 1, wherein a total quantity of bits used for the field is less than the one or more bitwidths, resulting in a quantity of unused bits (fig.5, [0088-94] padding).
As to claim 9, 20: Lee teaches the UE of claim 6, wherein two transport blocks are scheduled by the DCI communication, wherein the total quantity of bits used for the field is associated with a first transport block, of the two transport blocks (fig.5, [0088-94] DCI scheduling), and wherein at least a portion of the quantity of unused bits is associated with a second transport block, of the two transport blocks ([0120, 121]).
As to claim 10, 21, 30: Lee teaches the UE of claim 1, 30, wherein the co-scheduled cell indicator field indicates one of multiple co-scheduled cell combinations associated with the DCI communication (fig.5, [0088-94] DCI scheduling co-scheduled cells), and wherein the one or more processors, to identify the one ore more bitwidths, are configured to identify a quantity of bits necessary to schedule a co-scheduled cell combination, of the multiple co-scheduled cell combinations, that is associated with a maximum quantity of bits (fig.5, [0088-94] DCI with N-bit map).
Claim(s) 7, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US-20180227885), Olesen (EP-2765730-A2), Ahn (US-20180123766) in view of Sun (US-20180376463).
As to claim 7, 18: Lee teaches the UE of claim 6.
Lee may not explicitly teach wherein another field of the DCI communication that occurs directly after the field begins after the quantity of unused bits. However, Sun teaches wherein another field of the DCI communication that occurs directly after the field begins after the quantity of unused bits (abstract, fig.8).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement arranging DCI payload, taught by Sun, into the DCI, taught by Lee, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol configure the channel. In addition it would have been obvious to combine Sun and Lee in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 8, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US-20180227885), Ahn (US-20180123766) in view of Suzuki (US-20210243767).
As to claim 8, 19: Lee teaches the UE of claim 6.
Lee may not explicitly teach wherein another field of the DCI communication that occurs directly after the field begins after the total quantity of bits used for the field, and wherein the quantity of unused bits is included at an end of the DCI communication. However, Suzuki teaches wherein another field of the DCI communication that occurs directly after the field begins after the total quantity of bits used for the field, and wherein the quantity of unused bits is included at an end of the DCI communication (fig.9).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement arranging DCI payload, taught by Suzuki, into the DCI, taught by Lee, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and to configure the channel. In addition it would have been obvious to combine Lee and Suzuki in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 11, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US-20180227885), Olesen (EP-2765730-A2), Ahn (US-20180123766) in view of Choi (US-20100195586).
As to claim 11, 22: Lee teaches the UE of claim 1.
Lee may not explicitly teach wherein the one or more cells includes only a single cell, and wherein a quantity of bits used for the field is based at least in part on at least one of a bandwidth part size associated with the single cell or a resource block group size associated with the single cell. However, Choi teaches wherein the one or more cells includes only a single cell, and wherein a quantity of bits used for the field is based at least in part on at least one of a bandwidth part size associated with the single cell or a resource block group size associated with the single cell ([0025] The payload size for each DCI format is variable and depends mainly on the cell bandwidth).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement arranging DCI payload, taught by Choi, into the DCI, taught by Lee, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and to configure the channel. In addition it would have been obvious to combine Choi and Lee in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW CHUNG SUK OH whose telephone number is (571)270-5273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12p-8p.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 5712727969. 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.
/ANDREW C OH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights