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 with respect to claim(s) 18-23, 26-29, 31-35 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 Objections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claims 18-23 and 26-29, do not depend on a preceding independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 18, 19, 26, 27, 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sun et al. (US 2022/03004016) (“Sun”).
For claims 31, 32; and 33; Sun discloses: receive, from a base station, a radio resource control (RRC) message including cross carrier scheduling (CCS) configuration information indicating that a primary cell (Pcell) is scheduled by a secondary cell (Scell) (paragraph 117: The indication to monitor the CSS and the indication to monitor the USS may be included within one or more RRC configuration messages); monitor, on the Pcell, a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) for receiving at least one first downlink control information (DCI) associated with a common search space (CSS) (paragraph 145: the PCell may utilize Type0-PDCCH CSS, Type0A-PDCCH CSS, Type1-PDCCH CSS, Type2-PDCCH CSS, and Type3-PDCCH CSS (only for fallback DCI formats)); and monitor, on the Scell, a PDCCH for receiving at least one second DCI associated with the CSS and at least one DCI associated with a UE specific search space (USS), based on the CCS configuration information (paragraph 145: the Scell may utilize the UE-specific Search Space (USS) and Type3-PDCCH CSS (only for Special DCI formats)), wherein the at least one second DCI includes at least one of DCI format 2_0, DCI format 2_1, DCI format 2_2, or DCI format 2_3 (paragraph 145: the SCell may utilize NR non-fallback DCI formats 0_1, 0_2, 1_1, 1_2, and NR special DCI formats 2_0, 2_1, 2_2, 2_3, 2_4, 2_5, and 2_6, which do support cross-carrier scheduling).
For claims 18 and 26; Vivo discloses: wherein search space related information is configured for the Pcell (paragraph 117: The configuration information may include an indication to monitor a common search space (CSS) for first downlink control information (DCI) from the PCell and/or an indication to monitor a UE-specific search space (USS) for second DCI from the first SCell).
For claims 19 and 27; Vivo discloses: wherein the CCS configuration information is associated with the PCell (paragraph 117: configuration information is received from the network. The configuration information may be received from the PCell and/or from a first SCell of the one or more SCells).
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.
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) 20, 21, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Vivo (“Discussion on Scell scheduling P(S)cell”, R1-2100473, 1/18/2021).
For claims 20 and 28; Sun discloses the subject matter in claim 20 as described above in the office action.
Sun does not expressly disclose, but Vivo from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the CCS related configuration information includes: a parameter indicating an identifier (ID) of the Scell; and a parameter indicating a carrier indicator field (CIF) value used in the Scell (paragraph 117: P(S)cell configuration, it could be indicated as 'other' in schedulingCellInfo together with the scheduling Scell ID and CIF used in the Scell scheduling the P(S)cell). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the signaling as described by Vivo in the CCS configuration as described by Sun. The motivation is to improve cross carrier scheduling across multiple carriers.
For claims 21; Sun discloses: wherein the CIF value is one among 1 to 7 (paragraph 144: a Carrier Indicator Field (CIF) may be set to zero for self-scheduling and the CIF may be set to an integer value from 1 to 7 for cross carrier scheduling).
Claim(s) 22, 23, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Vivo as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Shi et al. (US 2023/0084554) (“Shi”).
For claim 22 and 29; Sun discloses the subject matter in claim 20 as described above in the office action.
Sun does not expressly disclose, but Shi from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the CCS related configuration information includes a self-scheduling related parameter indicating that the Scell is scheduled by the PDCCH of the Scell, and wherein the self-scheduling related parameter includes a parameter indicating whether a carrier indicator field (CIF) value is present (paragraph 28: For an SCell (called a cell A, with a cell index, ServCellIndex>0), for example, a cell with ServCellIndex=3 is carrier A. When RRC configures CrossCarrierSchedulingConfig, the scheduling cell information schedulingCellInfo for the cell A is configured as “own”, i.e., self-scheduling, and cif-Presence of the cell A is configured as “true”, and a bit field of CIF exists). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the signaling as described by Shi in the CCS as described by Sun. The motivation is to improve cross carrier scheduling across multiple carriers.
For claim 23; Sun discloses the subject matter in claim 22 as described above in the office action.
Sun does not expressly disclose, but Shi from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein in case that the CIF value is present, the CIF value is 0 (paragraph 19: When the cif-Presence is configured as “true”, a bit field of CIF exists, and CIF=0 indicates self-scheduling). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the signaling as described by Shi in the CCS as described by Sun. The motivation is to improve cross carrier scheduling across multiple carriers.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Tseng et al. (US 2015/0376457) (“Tseng”).
For claim 34; Sun discloses the subject matter in claim 33 as described above in the office action.
Sun does not expressly disclose, but Tseng from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the CCS related configuration information includes a self-scheduling related parameter indicating that the Scell is scheduled by the PDCCH of the Scell, and wherein the self-scheduling related parameter includes a parameter indicating whether a carrier indicator field (CIF) value is present (paragraph 133, 164-165: the UE may consider sCellDeactivationTimer=infinity if the RAN does not configure an sCellDeactivationTimer to the UE… cross-carrier scheduling for Duplication, where the mapping between logical channels and cells are pre-defined by a base station). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the SCell activation as described by Tseng in the CCS as described by Sun. The motivation is to improve cross carrier scheduling across multiple carriers.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Cirik et al. (US 2022/0159733) (“Cirik”).
For claim 35; Sun discloses the subject matter in claim 33 as described above in the office action.
Sun does not expressly disclose, but Cirik from similar fields of endeavor teaches: in case that a random access (RA) procedure is performed, monitoring, on the Pcell, a PDCCH for receiving DCI including at least one DCI format associated with an RA-radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) (paragraph 272: a wireless device may monitor, for a DCI format with CRC scrambled by an RNTI (e.g., RA-RNTI or TC-RNTI), a PDCCH (or PDCCH candidates) in a Type1-PDCCH CSS set on a cell (e.g., PCell. SCell). The Type1-PDCCH CSS set may be configured by ra-SearchSpace in PDCCH-ConfigCommon). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the RA monitoring as described by Cirik in the CCS as described by Sun. The motivation is to improve cross carrier scheduling across multiple carriers.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. applicant's disclosure. Bagheri et al. (US 2023/0397191); Bagheri discloses for processing time: 1) a UE is not expected to be configured to monitor at least some of the group common ("GC") DCI ("GC-DCI") formats (e.g., including DCI format 2_4 for UL control information ("CI")) in both PCell and SCell applicable to PCell (e.g., a GC- DCI format may only be monitored in PCell or SCell-P or another cell, but not both PCell and the SCell).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 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 JOHN D BLANTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3933. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-6pm EST, Mon-Thu.
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 571-272-7969. 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.
/JOHN D BLANTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466