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 .
Claims 1-17 and 25-30 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-4, 9-12, 17 and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al, application no. 2024/0146468, hereinafter known as Wang.
As to claim 1, Wang discloses a wireless device configured to communicate with a network node (Wang, figure 1, part 110, [0040], Wireless device of the art in communication with part 120, the network node), the wireless device comprising: processing circuitry (Wang, [0173], wireless device with circuitry) configured to: receive a first indication of a first physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) carrier for dynamic PUCCH carrier switching (Wang, [0063]-[0066], first indication of PUCCH for dynamic carrier switching); receive a second indication that a semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) hybrid automatic repeat request-acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) deferral is enabled for the second PUCCH carrier (Wang, [0088], SPS HARQ-ACK is deferral is enabled for second PUCCH carrier); and perform dynamic PUCCH carrier switching from a second PUCCH carrier to the first PUCCH carrier based at least on the first indication instead of performing the SPS HARQ-ACK deferral (Wang, [0088], wireless device choosing first PUCCH instead of deferral or delaying of the SPS HARQ-ACK).
As to claim 2, Wang discloses wherein the first indication is one of: a downlink assignment index (DAI) associated with the first PUCCH carrier; a downlink semi-persistent scheduling (DL SPS) configuration associated with the first PUCCH carrier; a multiple PUCCH carrier indication for semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) hybrid automatic repeat request-acknowledgement (HARQ-ACKU) that is provided in one of: an activation downlink control information (DCI); and a bitmap of PUCCH carrier indices; and an activation DCI for indicating one of a plurality of sequences for PUCCH carrier indices to select, the plurality of sequences being configured via radio resource control(RRC) signaling (Wang, [0066], multiple PUCCH carrier indication of SPS HARQ-ACK with activation of DCI).
As to claim 3, Wang discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to receive a second indication that a semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) hybrid automatic repeat request-acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) deferral is enabled for the second PUCCH carrier, the dynamic PUCCH carrier switching being performed instead of the SPS HARQ-ACK deferral (Wang, [0088], dynamic PUCCH carrier switching instead of the SPS HARQ-ACK deferral).
As to claim 4, Wang disclose wherein the dynamic PUCCH carrier switching is based at least on a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH)-to-hybrid automatic repeat request-acknowledgement (HARQ) feedback timing indicator (Wang, [0078]-[0079], PUCCH carrier switching based on HARQ feedback timing indicator)
As to claims 9-12, the claims are rejected as applied to claims 1-4 respectively above by Wang.
As to claim 17, the claim is rejected as applied to claim 1 above by Wang.
As to claims 25-28, the claims are rejected as applied to claims 1-4 respectively above by Wang.
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.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Takeda et al, application no. 2021/0243779, hereinafter known as Takeda.
As to claim 6, Wang discloses wireless device of claim 1. Wang does not disclose however Takeda discloses wherein the dynamic PUCCH carrier switching is performed with simultaneous PUCCH and physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmissions (Takeda, [0040], [0087], [0092], multiplexing PUCCH transmission with PUSCH including when they have same priority).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wang to include the limitations of wherein the dynamic PUCCH carrier switching is performed with simultaneous PUCCH and physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmissions as taught by Takeda. Performing PUCCH and PUSCH together is spectrally more efficient and avoids communication collisions.
As to claims 14, the claim is rejected as applied to claim 6 above by Wang in view of Takeda.
Claims 7, 8, 15, 16 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Kim et al, application no. 2022/0038218, hereinafter known as Kim.
As to claim 7, Wang discloses wireless device of claim 1. Wang does not disclose however Kim discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause a transmission of hybrid automatic repeat request-acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) on the first PUCCH carrier, the transmission being based on a power control command associated with the second PUCCH carrier (Kim, [0520]-[0523], DCI for send to manage the power control of the PUCCH and power control sending thereof).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wang to include the limitations of wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause a transmission of hybrid automatic repeat request-acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) on the first PUCCH carrier, the transmission being based on a power control command associated with the second PUCCH carrier as taught by Kim. Power control by the network of uplink transmissions the UE’s ensure communications are conducted with sufficient power for the message to be received correctly while not using too much power to avoid cause interference.
As to claim 8, Wang and Kim discloses wireless device of claim 7. Wang does not disclose however Kim discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to receive an activation downlink control information (DCI) message, the activation DCI message including the power control command and being associated with a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) associated with the HARQ-ACK (Kim, [0520]-[0523], DCI for send to manage the power control of the PUCCH and power control sending thereof).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wang to include the limitations of wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to receive an activation downlink control information (DCI) message, the activation DCI message including the power control command and being associated with a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) associated with the HARQ-ACK as taught by Kim. Power control by the network of uplink transmissions the UE’s ensure communications are conducted with sufficient power for the message to be received correctly while not using too much power to avoid cause interference. Further use of DCI are known in the art for control signaling by the network to the UE.
As to claims 15 and 16, the claims are rejected as applied to claims 7 and 8 respectively above by Wang in view of Kim.
As to claim 29, Talarico and Kim disclose the method of claim 25. Talarico does not disclose however Kim discloses wherein the PDSCH-to-HARQ feedback timing indicator one of: indicates a HARQ-ACK timing value with respect to one of a default PUCCH carrier and other PUCCH carrier; and indicates an invalid slot for PUCCH transmission (Kim, [0231], sending indication HARQ feedback with timing indication for PUCCH; [0352], DCI message from network for sending back HARQ with indication for valid slot for PUCCH and slots where PUCCH cannot be sent).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Talarico to include the limitations of wherein the PDSCH-to-HARQ feedback timing indicator one of: indicates a HARQ-ACK timing value with respect to one of a default PUCCH carrier and other PUCCH carrier; and indicates an invalid slot for PUCCH transmission as taught by Kim. Timing and slot control information is routine sent by network to the UE’s in the art to indicate to UE when it can communicate in shared communication medium.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 13 and 30 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GAUTAM SHARMA whose telephone number is (571)270-7182. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-8pm.
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, Hassan Phillips can be reached at 571-272-3940. 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.
/GAUTAM SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 2467
/MOHAMMED S CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights