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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liang (US Pub. 2022/0386243).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Liang teaches a method for wireless communication by a user equipment (UE) of a first type (“eMBB UEs 3-1, 3-2” in [0115], see also “URLLC UE 3-3” in [0115] which is not the first type), comprising: receiving an uplink cancelation indication (ULCI) indicating resources on which one or more uplink transmissions are to be modified by the UE (“the base station 5 may also provide, at S624 an UL cancellation indication to one or more eMBB UEs 3-1, 3-2” in [0115]); and processing the ULCI in accordance with a first set of one or more parameters associated with ULCI processing specific to UEs of the first type (“the UL cancellation indication is provided with an additional field (information element) for indicating that the affected eMBB UE(s) 3-1, 3-2 should adjust transmission power for the eMBB transmissions” in [0115], see also the Power Parameter Set in Table 4 is specific to eMBB UEs wherein the Power Parameter Set in Table 2 is specific to URLLC UEs).
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, 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.
Claims 2 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang in view of Babaei (US Pub. 2022/0039072).
Regarding claims 2 and 20, Liang teaches the limitations in claims 1 and 19 as shown above. Liang, however, does not teach UEs of the first type comprise reduced capability (RedCap) UEs that support a minimum processing time that is greater than a minimum processing time supported by UEs of a second type. Babaei teaches UEs of the first type comprise reduced capability (RedCap) UEs that support a minimum processing time that is greater than a minimum processing time supported by UEs of a second type (“A wireless device type may be a reduced capability (RedCap) type” in [0196] and “relaxed UE processing capability” in [0197]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liang to have UEs of the first type comprise reduced capability (RedCap) UEs that support a minimum processing time that is greater than a minimum processing time supported by UEs of a second type as taught by Babaei in order to enable the performance degradation of such complexity reduction to be mitigated or limited [0197].
Claims 3-5, 8, 9, 12, 21-23, 26, 27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang in view of Park (US Pub. 2020/0344747).
Regarding claims 3 and 21, Liang teaches the limitations in claims 1 and 19 as shown above. Liang, however, does not teach the first set of one or more parameters comprise at least one timing parameter that defines a window in which the ULCI is applicable. Park teaches the first set of one or more parameters comprise at least one timing parameter that defines a window in which the ULCI is applicable (see [0120] and Figure 10). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liang to have the first set of one or more parameters comprise at least one timing parameter that defines a window in which the ULCI is applicable as taught by Park in order to set the parameter value by capabilities of the UE [0122].
Regarding claims 4 and 22, Park teaches the at least one timing parameter indicates that the window in which the ULCI is applicable begins a number of slots after an end of physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) carrying a downlink control information (DCI) conveying the ULCI (see [0115], [0125] and [0126]).
Regarding claims 5 and 23, Park teaches the at least one timing parameter is indicated via at least one of: system information (SI) dedicated to UEs of the first type; radio resource control (RRC) signaling semi-statically configured for UEs of the first type; a medium access control (MAC) layer's control element (CE); or RRC configuration information for an active uplink bandwidth part (UL BWP) associated with UEs of the first type [0121].
Regarding claims 8 and 26, Park teaches the first set of one or more parameters comprise at least one timing parameter that defines at least one time span of uplink resources to which the ULCI can be applicable (see “time duration, M” in [0129]).
Regarding claims 9 and 27, Park teaches the at least one time span includes one or multiple uplink bursts consecutive or non-consecutive in time, wherein each uplink burst comprises a plural of uplink symbols or slots within a frame associated with at least one of time division duplexed (TDD), full duplex frequency division duplexed (FD-FDD), or half duplex frequency division duplexed (HD-FDD) operation (see [0133] - [0135] and Figure 13).
Regarding claims 12 and 30, Park teaches the at least one time span spans a set of UL slots or symbols sequentially divided into multiple groups, where each group includes the same number of uplink slots or symbols (see [0094] and Figure 8).
Claims 6 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang in view of Park and further in view of Babaei (US 10,979,976, hereinafter Babaei976).
Regarding claims 6 and 24, Liang in view of Park teaches the limitations in claims 3 and 21 as shown above. Liang in view of Park, however, does not teach at least of: the at least one timing parameter is conveyed via a sub-field of a downlink control information, or the downlink control information conveys the ULCI. Babaei976 teaches at least of: the at least one timing parameter is conveyed via a sub-field of a downlink control information, or the downlink control information conveys the ULCI (“a time/frequency region may be provided in the cancelation indication DCI” in Column 30 Lines 17-18 and “slot and/or symbol offset indicated by DCI” in Column 30 Lines 30-31). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liang in view of Park to have at least of: the at least one timing parameter is conveyed via a sub-field of a downlink control information, or the downlink control information conveys the ULCI as taught by Babaei976 in order to use PDCCH for UL cancelation indication (Column 30 Lines 5-6).
Claims 10, 11, 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang in view of Park further in view of Takahashi et al. (US Pub. 2022/0272739).
Regarding claims 10 and 28, Liang in view of Park teaches the limitations in claims 8 and 26 as shown above. Liang in view of Park, however, does not teach the time span is based on a starting slot or symbol and a length of slots or symbols. Takahashi teaches the time span is based on a starting slot or symbol and a length of slots or symbols (“UL cancellation indication using a start and length indicator (SLIV)” in [0015]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liang in view of Park to have the time span is based on a starting slot or symbol and a length of slots or symbols as taught by Takahashi in order to indicate the time resource [0115].
Regarding claims 11 and 29, Takahashi teaches the starting slot or symbol is encoded in a starting and length indicator vector (SLIV) and account for uplink resources only (“UL cancellation indication using a start and length indicator (SLIV)” in [0015]).
Claims 13, 14, 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang in view of Kittichokechai et al. (US Pub. 2024/0057072).
Regarding claims 13 and 31, Liang teaches the limitations in claims 1 and 19 as shown above. Liang, however, does not teach processing the ULCI comprises applying the ULCI to at least one of: one or more physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) transmissions, one or more physical random access channel (PRACH) transmissions, or one or more random access message of 2-step RACH (msgA) transmissions. Kittichokechai teaches processing the ULCI comprises applying the ULCI to at least one of: one or more physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) transmissions, one or more physical random access channel (PRACH) transmissions, or one or more random access message of 2-step RACH (msgA) transmissions [0007]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liang to have processing the ULCI comprises applying the ULCI to at least one of: one or more physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) transmissions, one or more physical random access channel (PRACH) transmissions, or one or more random access message of 2-step RACH (msgA) transmissions as taught by Kittichokechai in order to cancel some UL transmissions within resources that are indicated by the cancellation indication [0026].
Regarding claims 14 and 32, Kittichokechai teaches the ULCI is applied to at least one of a PUCCH transmission or a PRACH transmission if one or more conditions are met (“In case (A), the WD 22 is scheduled to transmit PUCCH, upon detecting the control information (CI), cancels PUCCH since the PUCCH resources overlap with the resource-to-cancel as indicated in the CI. In case (B), the PUCCH resource is contained in the protected resource and is excluded from being canceled even if the CI indicates the resource-to-cancel area overlapping with the PUCCH resources” in [0110]).
Claims 17, 18, 35 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang in view of Interdigital (R1-1909453, “Enhanced Inter UE Transmit prioritization/multiplexing for eURLLC”, as submitted with IDS received on 05/08/2023).
Regarding claims 17 and 35, Liang teaches the limitations in claims 1 and 19 as shown above. Liang, however, does not teach receiving signaling indicating a priority of applying the ULCI. Interdigital teaches receiving signaling indicating a priority of applying the ULCI (page 4 lines 7-14 and page 4 Proposal 5). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liang to have receiving signaling indicating a priority of applying the ULCI as taught by Interdigital in order to reduce monitoring overhead (page 4 line 7).
Regarding claims 18 and 36, Interdigital teaches the signaling comprises at least one of: an explicit indication in the ULCI, an implicit indication by a radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) mapping, a common search space (CSS) configuration, or a demodulation reference signal (DMRS) scrambling (page 4 lines 7-14).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 15, 16, 25, 33 and 34 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLEMENCE S HAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM 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, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571)272-7884. 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.
/CLEMENCE S HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414