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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant alleges that the disclosure of Kurita et al. (US 2023/0345555 A1), does not teach:
Claim 1 as amended, and in particular the availability combination identifier, the position in the DCI payload. The office respectfully disagrees.
With regard to Kurita the office asserts, again, that Kurita teaches each and every limitation of the claims except those which have been indicated to be in condition for allowance below. For example, the disclosure of Kurita is directed to resource allocation in wireless communications system which comprise Integrate Access and Backhaul (IAB) nodes. Wherein the IAB nodes can create backhaul links among each other in order to service terminals within the wireless communications network, as discussed in fig.1. The disclosure of Kurita also teaches that the resource configured for use (e.g. time and/or frequency resources) can static and/or semi-static based on an indication of Hard or Soft, as discussed in fig.2 of the reference. With regard to availability combination identifier, the office notes that along with indication of the resources as being static or semi-static, the soft or rather semi-static resources have associated therewith a availability indication, which was previously noted in 3GPP TS38.212 Section 7.3. Par.[0113] describes the IAB receiving via DCI 2_5 an indication, (i.e. an availability indication) which denotes whether the soft resources are available or not utilizing IA/INA. See par.[0113] which recites, in part, “The IAB node MT detects DCI format 2_5 (3GPP TS38.212 Section 7.3) and indicates that the symbol is available by a field value of an Availability Indicator (AI) index (explicit indication).”.
Fig.6 explicitly discloses that the DCI comprises an AI “Field” wherein the IA/INA is indicated for a resources blocks in the frequency domain, and correspond to the symbol in the time domain as noted in fig.6a, and par. [0161 – 0162, 0167 – 0170]. As previously noted the AI field comprises the availability combination identifier as claimed.
As can be seen, the disclosure of Kurita substantially discloses the claimed subject matter and in particular the availability combination identifier. The claims stand rejected.
The applicant further alleges that the disclosure of Kurita does not teach the position of the availability in the DCI payload or a preconfigured availability identifier. As can be seen, the disclosure teaches at par.[0122 – 0126] describes the DCI indicating whether a resource in a particular granularity is static or semi-static as well as the availability (i.e. availability indication) is pre-configured as being either available or not when the resource is a soft/semi-static resource (par.[0155 – 0159]). As the IAB node is notified by the parent node of which resources are static or semi-static and whether the resources are available or not, the disclosure teaches the preconfigured availability identifier. Further, the position of the availability identifier is noted in DCI format, for example, par.[0157] recites, in part, “Specifically, for each DU serving cell, the field of the frequency availability indicator included in the DCI format X may indicate the IA/INA of the soft frequency resource. The IAB node may determine the IA/INA of the soft frequency resource for each DU serving cell based on the position of the frequency availability indicator included in the DCI format X.”. Thus, the disclosure of Kurita teaches this feature as well. Thus, with above response to the arguments, it is shown that Kurita substantially discloses each and every limitation of the claims, and the claims stand rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-18, and 20-22, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regard to independent claim 1, and 14-16, it has been amended to recite, in part:
“receive/transmit a DCI message at the position indicated by the configurations, the DCI message comprising an availability indication field at the position”
With regard to the claim, it initially states:
“receive/transmit configurations for a plurality of resource block groups”
As can be seen the “the configurations” are directed to a plurality of resource block groups, and not directed to reception of control information, or in particular Downlink Control Information (DCI) in a certain position as claimed.
Additionally the applicant alleges that the disclosure at paragraphs, [0095, 0108, 0172, 0188, 0364, 0379, 0408, 0416, 0418, and 0452] describe the above features. While reviewing the above paragraphs, none describe “receiving configurations for a plurality of resource block groups……. and receive a DCI message at the position indicated by the configurations”. That is, while the specification may state that resource block groups configurations are transmitted, they do not specify that the configurations for the resource block groups also configure the location or position for reception or transmission of DCI. The claims are rejected.
Each of the dependent claims 2-3, 5-13, 17-18, and 20-22, are rejected for their dependency on the independent claims, and for failing to cure the deficiencies therein.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 14-19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kurita et al. (US 2023/0345555 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Kurita discloses:
an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node (par.[0004] describes an IAB node) for wireless communication (fig.1 depicts a wireless communications network), comprising:
at least one memory (fig.15 depicts a memory element 1002); and
at least one processor (fig.15 element 1001) coupled with the at least one memory (fig.15 depicts the memory 1002 and 1001) and configured to cause the IAB node (par.[0004] describes the IAB node as discussed above) to:
receive configurations (par.[0010] which describes reception of a resource configuration) for a plurality of resource block groups (par.[0069 – 0071] which describe the time and frequency resources, which may be resource block groups in the time and frequency domain), the configurations comprising an indication that the plurality of resource block groups is soft (par.[0048 – 0049] which describes the designation assigned to resources, such as; Hard; Soft; or N/A, par.[0123 – 0125, 0148- 0150]), one or more availability combination identifiers identifying a pre-configured set of availability states for the plurality of resource block groups (par.[0155] which describes the availability identifiers IA/INA for the frequency resources, which is indicated in the DCI. The IA/INA are pre-configured identifiers, and signaled via DCI), and a position in a downlink control information (DCI) payload (par.[0155] describe the DCI format X, or the DCI format 2_5, at par.[0153]) at which an availability indication field indicating one of the one or more availability combination identifiers is located (par.[0157] which recites, in part, “The DCI format X can indicate the IA/INA of the soft frequency resources for the plurality of DU serving cells. Specifically, for each DU serving cell, the field of the frequency availability indicator included in the DCI format X may indicate the IA/INA of the soft frequency resource. The IAB node may determine the IA/INA of the soft frequency resource for each DU serving cell based on the position of the frequency availability indicator included in the DCI format X.”);
receive a DCI message at the position indicated by the configurations, the DCI message comprising an availability indication field at the position, the availability indication field indicating via the one or more availability combination identifiers, whether the plurality of resource block groups is available or not available (par.[0110] which recites, in part, “The IAB node MT detects DCI format 2_5 (3GPP TS38.212 Section 7.3) and indicates that the symbol is available by a field value of an Availability Indicator (AI) index (explicit indication).” And par.[0157] which recites, in part, “The IAB node may determine the IA/INA of the soft frequency resource for each DU serving cell based on the position of the frequency availability indicator included in the DCI format X.”); and
determine that physical resource block in the plurality of resource block groups are available or not available based on the availability indication field at the position in the DCI message (par.[0157 – 0161] wherein for the soft resources, the DCI format X is capable of indicating IA-Availability or INA-Unavailable for a plurality of resources corresponding to the position in the field of the DCI message. For example, fig.6a utilizes IA or INA for a plurality of soft resources in time and frequency. Par.[0161 – 0162, 0167 - 0170]).
Regarding claims 2 and 17, Kurita discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the IAB node to receive:
configurations for a plurality of physical resource block in a frequency domain (par.[0221] describes the RBG indicated by RRC signaling); and
configurations for the plurality of resource block groups, each resource block group comprising a first number of physical resource blocks (par.[0221 and 0223] which describes the RBG according the RBG size which details the number of RB in the RBG).
Regarding claims 3 and 18, Kurita discloses:
wherein the availability indication field is a bit in a bitmap of the availability indication control message (par.[0167 – 0168] which describes the bitmap in the control message, wherein 1 indicates an availability and a 0 indicates no availability).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Kurita discloses:
an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node (par.[0004] describes an IAB node) for wireless communication (fig.1 depicts a wireless communications network), comprising:
at least one memory (fig.15 depicts a memory element 1002); and
at least one processor (fig.15 element 1001) coupled with the at least one memory (fig.15 depicts the memory 1002 and 1001) and configured to cause the IAB node (par.[0004] describes the IAB node as discussed above) to:
determining an availability of physical resource blocks in a plurality of resource block groups in a plurality resource block groups (par.[0048 – 0049] fig.2 element 100A and par.[0065 – 0068] describes the parent node configuring resources, (i.e. resource block groups” for a child node element 100B);
transmit configurations (par.[0010] which describes reception of a resource configuration by a lower node from a higher node) for a plurality of resource block groups (par.[0069 – 0071] which describe the time and frequency resources, which may be resource block groups in the time and frequency domain), the configurations comprising an indication that the plurality of resource block groups is soft (par.[0048 – 0049] which describes the designation assigned to resources, such as; Hard; Soft; or N/A, par.[0123 – 0125]), one or more availability combination identifiers identifying a pre-configured set of availability states for the plurality of resource block groups (par.[0155] which describes the availability identifiers IA/INA for the frequency resources, which is indicated in the DCI. The IA/INA are pre-configured identifiers, and signaled via DCI), and a position in a downlink control information (DCI) payload (par.[0155] describe the DCI format X, or the DCI format 2_5, at par.[0153]) at which an availability indication field indicating one of the one or more availability combination identifiers is located (par.[0157] which recites, in part, “The DCI format X can indicate the IA/INA of the soft frequency resources for the plurality of DU serving cells. Specifically, for each DU serving cell, the field of the frequency availability indicator included in the DCI format X may indicate the IA/INA of the soft frequency resource. The IAB node may determine the IA/INA of the soft frequency resource for each DU serving cell based on the position of the frequency availability indicator included in the DCI format X.”);
transmit a DCI message at the position indicated by the configurations, the DCI message comprising an availability indication field at the position, the availability indication field indicating via the one or more availability combination identifiers, whether the plurality of resource block groups is available or not available (par.[0110] which recites, in part, “The IAB node MT detects DCI format 2_5 (3GPP TS38.212 Section 7.3) and indicates that the symbol is available by a field value of an Availability Indicator (AI) index (explicit indication).” And par.[0157] which recites, in part, “The IAB node may determine the IA/INA of the soft frequency resource for each DU serving cell based on the position of the frequency availability indicator included in the DCI format X.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurita as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of You et al. (US 2024/0015705 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the disclosure of Kurita teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the IAB node to:
receive a first control message indicating that a first resource is conditionally available by a first entity, the first resource comprising a soft resource (see rejection of claim 1 above with regard to soft resource).
The disclosure of Kurita does not teach:
perform a downlink transmission by the first resource in response to determining that the downlink transmission does not change an uplink transmission on a second resource at a second entity, the second resource overlapping the first resource in a time domain; and
omit a downlink transmission on the first resource in response to determining that the downlink transmission changes an uplink transmission on the second resource at the second entity, the second resource overlapping the first resource in a time domain.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Luo teaches:
perform a downlink transmission by the first resource in response to determining that the downlink transmission does not change an uplink transmission on a second resource at a second entity, the second resource overlapping the first resource in a time domain (par.[0424] describes dropping an uplink or a downlink resource when the uplink and downlink resource overlap, otherwise the uplink and/or downlink transmission may be performed); and
omit a downlink transmission on the first resource in response to determining that the downlink transmission changes an uplink transmission on the second resource at the second entity, the second resource overlapping the first resource in a time domain (par.[0424] the dropping of either the uplink and/or downlink based on the uplink and/or downlink overlapping).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Kurita for signaling resource availability with the disclosure of You for preventing interference. The motivation/suggestion would have been to reduce interference on the uplink and or downlink.
Regarding claim 8, You discloses:
the first entity is a DU, and a second entity is a mobile terminal (fig.24 depicts an IAB node, with a DU and MT functionality).
Regarding claim 9, You discloses:
wherein the determining is based at least in part on one or more of a multiplexing capability of the network node, a duplexing capability of the network node, a capability of time-domain multiplexing between the first entity and the second entity, and a number of antenna panels of the network node (par.[0113] which describes the time needed to switch from a uplink to downlink, par.[0425 – 0426]).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurita and You as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of NTT DoCoMo “Mechanisms for Resource Multiplexing among Backhaul and Access Links”, October 2019, R1-1911166.
Regarding claim 6, the disclosure Kurita and You and in particular You describes dropping an uplink or downlink transmission when there is overlap, but does not disclose:
Transmitting a second control message to a second network node, the second network node comprising a serving node of the network node, the second control message indicating whether the downlink transmission was omitted.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of NTT teaches:
Transmitting a second control message to a second network node, the second network node comprising a serving node of the network node, the second control message indicating whether the downlink transmission was omitted (Sec 2.2 Semi-Static Resource Configuration, which recites, in part, “In Alt.1-1, T_g2 needs to be indicated to the parent node so that the parent node can handle the conflict by avoiding scheduling MT on the overlapping resources”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings discussed in Kurita and You, with the disclosure of NTT. The motivation/suggestion would have been to prevent interference do to resource conflict.
Regarding claim 7, NTT discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the IAB node to transmit a message to a third network node, the third network node comprising a configuration entity, the message indicating whether the downlink transmission was omitted (rejected for the same reasons as give for claim 6).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurita as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wei et al. (US 2022/0174630 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the disclosure of Kurita teaches transmission of resource availability, but does not disclose:
wherein the determining is based at least in part on one or more of a beamforming constraint, a power imbalance constraint, a total power constraint, an interference constraint, and a timing alignment constraint.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Wei teaches:
wherein the determining is based at least in part on one or more of a beamforming constraint, a power imbalance constraint, a total power constraint, an interference constraint, and a timing alignment constraint (par.[0178 and 0195]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Kurita with the disclosure of Wei. The motivation/suggestion would have been to provide a mechanism for a node to reliably transmit and receive on uplink and downlink.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 and 20-22, 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMAAL HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5339. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thu: 7:30 am - 6:30 pm.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)272-3123. 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.
JAMAAL HENSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2411
/JAMAAL HENSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights