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 .
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/KR2022/011611 filed on 8/5/2022.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 10-2021-0104056 filed on 8/6/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 1/29/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, and 11 are objected because of the following informalities:
In claims 1, 9, and 11, it is suggested to remove “and” before the semi-colon (;) (in line 5 of claim 1, in line 8 of claim 9, and in line 8 of claim 11) for correction of grammatical error and for clarity.
In claims 3-7, it is suggested to add “and” after the comma (,) (in line 3 of claim 3, in line 3 of claim 4, in line 3 of claim 5, in line 2 of claim 6, and in line 4 of claim 7) for correction of grammatical error and for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qualcomm Incorporated (“View on group scheduling for Multicast RRC_CONNECTED UEs”, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #105-e, R1-2104695, May 10-27, 2021, hereinafter Qualcomm).
Regarding claim 1:
Qualcomm teaches a method for receiving downlink data by a terminal (e.g., UE of Qualcomm) in a wireless communication system (see, Qualcomm: Section 1. Introduction), the method comprising:
receiving, from a network, configuration information on a common frequency resource (CFR) for a group-common transmission, associated with a terminal-dedicated bandwidth part (BWP) and (see, Qualcomm: Proposal 1, “Proposal 1: Option 2A is defined as CFR to enable simultaneous reception of unicast, multicast and broadcast in a dedicated BWP if the MBS CFR/BWP for multicast and the MBS CFR/BWP for broadcast are both associated with the dedicated BWP.”; Section 2.1, “Two MBS CFRs can be configured for different multicast/broadcast services associated with a dedicated BWP to receive the multicast service in corresponding CFR without BWP switching.”;
receiving a first physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) on the CFR (e.g., multicast GC-PDSCH per CFR, i.e., PTM) based on first downlink control information (DCI) (e.g., CFR DCI) (see, Qualcomm: Section 2.3, “For GC-PDCCH, the SS type could be a new type of CSS to use DCI format 1_0 as well as DCI formats 1_1/1_2. The monitoring occasion of SS for GC-PDCCH could be overlapping with the CSS and USS configured for the unicast PDCCH in the dedicated DL BWP.”); and
receiving a second PDSCH on the BWP (e.g., UE-specific PDSCH by the UE-specific BWP, i.e., PTP) based on second DCI (e.g., BWP DCI) (see, Qualcomm: Section 2.3, “For GC-PDCCH, the SS type could be a new type of CSS to use DCI format 1_0 as well as DCI formats 1_1/1_2. The monitoring occasion of SS for GC-PDCCH could be overlapping with the CSS and USS configured for the unicast PDCCH in the dedicated DL BWP.”),
wherein the receiving the first PDSCH includes rate matching based on the CFR (see, Qualcomm: Section 2.2, “For multicast GC-PDSCH per CFR, we need to align the LBRM parameters for the maximum TBS determination. The bandwidth range of CFR can be used to determine the nPRB,LBRM.” “Another factor is the PDSCH rate matching pattern, e.g., the ZP CSI-RS pattern configured in pdsch-Config for MBS per CFR.”), and
wherein the receiving the second PDSCH includes rate matching based on the BWP (see, Qualcomm: Section 2.2, “For UE-specific PDSCH, the limited buffer rate matching (LBRM) is a function of number of PRBs determined by the UE-specific BWPs of a carrier, maximum number of layers, and maximum modulation order configured for a serving cell.”).
Regarding claim 2:
As discussed above, Qualcomm teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Qualcomm further teaches wherein: the rate matching includes limited buffer rate matching (LBRM) (see, Qualcomm: Section 2.2, “For UE-specific PDSCH, the limited buffer rate matching (LBRM) is a function of number of PRBs determined by the UE-specific BWPs of a carrier, maximum number of layers, and maximum modulation order configured for a serving cell. For multicast GC-PDSCH per CFR, we need to align the LBRM parameters for the maximum TBS determination. The bandwidth range of CFR can be used to determine the nPRB,LBRM.”; Proposal 4: “For RRC_CONNECTED UEs, the LBRM for GC-PDSCH TBS is determined per CFR.”).
Regarding claim 3:
As discussed above, Qualcomm teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Qualcomm further teaches wherein: the rate matching based on the CFR includes applying a BWP-level rate matching pattern to the CFR (see, Qualcomm: Section 2.2, “For multicast GC-PDSCH per CFR, we need to align the LBRM parameters for the maximum TBS determination. The bandwidth range of CFR can be used to determine the nPRB,LBRM.”; Proposal 4: “For RRC_CONNECTED UEs, the LBRM for GC-PDSCH TBS is determined per CFR.”), the rate matching based on the BWP includes applying the BWP-level rate matching pattern to the BWP (see, Qualcomm: Section 2.2, “For UE-specific PDSCH, the limited buffer rate matching (LBRM) is a function of number of PRBs determined by the UE-specific BWPs of a carrier, maximum number of layers, and maximum modulation order configured for a serving cell.”).
Regarding claim 4:
As discussed above, Qualcomm teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Qualcomm further teaches wherein: the first DCI includes information indicating a rate matching pattern group applied to the rate matching based on the CFR (see, Qualcomm: Section 2.2, “For multicast GC-PDSCH per CFR, we need to align the LBRM parameters for the maximum TBS determination. The bandwidth range of CFR can be used to determine the nPRB,LBRM.”; Proposal 4: “For RRC_CONNECTED UEs, the LBRM for GC-PDSCH TBS is determined per CFR.”), the second DCI includes information indicating a rate matching pattern group applied to the rate matching based on the BWP (see, Qualcomm: Section 2.2, “For UE-specific PDSCH, the limited buffer rate matching (LBRM) is a function of number of PRBs determined by the UE-specific BWPs of a carrier, maximum number of layers, and maximum modulation order configured for a serving cell.”).
Regarding claim 5:
As discussed above, Qualcomm teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Qualcomm further teaches wherein: the first DCI is CRC (cyclic redundancy check)-scrambled by a group-radio network temporary identifier (G-RNTI) or a group-configured scheduling-RNTI (G-CS-RNTI) (see, Qualcomm: Section 2.4, “G-CS-RNTI is used for PTM scheme 1 based dynamic retransmission of SPS group-common PDSCH”), the second DCI is CRC-scrambled by a cell-RNTI (C-RNTI) or a CS-RNTI (see, Qualcomm: Section 2.4, “CS-RNTI can be used for PTP retransmission of SPS group-common PDSCH”).
Regarding claim 6:
As discussed above, Qualcomm teaches all limitations in claim 5.
Qualcomm further teaches wherein: the first DCI (e.g., CFR DCI) and the first PDSCH are associated with the group common transmission (see, Qualcomm: Section 2.2, “For multicast GC-PDSCH per CFR, we need to align the LBRM parameters for the maximum TBS determination. The bandwidth range of CFR can be used to determine the nPRB,LBRM.” “Another factor is the PDSCH rate matching pattern, e.g., the ZP CSI-RS pattern configured in pdsch-Config for MBS per CFR.”; Section 2.4, “G-CS-RNTI is used for PTM scheme 1 based dynamic retransmission of SPS group-common PDSCH”), the second DCI (e.g., BWP DCI) and the second PDSCH are associated with a terminal-specific transmission (see, Qualcomm: Section 2.2, “For UE-specific PDSCH, the limited buffer rate matching (LBRM) is a function of number of PRBs determined by the UE-specific BWPs of a carrier, maximum number of layers, and maximum modulation order configured for a serving cell.”).
Regarding claim 7:
As discussed above, Qualcomm teaches all limitations in claim 6.
Qualcomm further teaches wherein: hybrid automatic repeat and request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) information for the group common transmission is transmitted to the network based on whether a transport block (TB) received through the first PDSCH being successfully decoded (i.e., PTM), the second DCI is received from the network after transmission of the HARQ-ACK information for the group common transmission (i.e., PTM or PTP) (see, Qualcomm: Section 2.4, “In last RAN1 meeting, we have discussed the possibility of using PTP and/or PTM to schedule the PDSCH for multicast transmission. The initial transmission may be based on PTM-1 and re-transmission may be PTM-1 or PTP. The scheduling can be based on the number of UEs that failed to receive the initial transmission. In addition, it can be based on the UE HARQ-ACK feedback and CSI feedback. In general, PTM-1 retransmission is more efficient to avoid duplicated transmission per UE. But for a cell-edge UE, if always fails to receive PTM-1, the PTP with unicast beamforming is more efficient than multicast group beamforming for retransmission for the given HPID. Since a UE anyway needs to monitor both GC-PDCCH and PDCCH, no need to restrict only one scheme, e.g., PTM-1 or PTP, for all the UEs in a multicast group.”).
Regarding claim 8:
As discussed above, Qualcomm teaches all limitations in claim 7.
Qualcomm further teaches wherein: based on a HARQ process number indicated by the second DCI being the same as a HARQ process number indicated by the first DCI, the second PDSCH transmission corresponds to a retransmission of the first PDSCH transmission (i.e., PTM retransmission) (see, Qualcomm: Section 2.4, “In last RAN1 meeting, we have discussed the possibility of using PTP and/or PTM to schedule the PDSCH for multicast transmission. The initial transmission may be based on PTM-1 and re-transmission may be PTM-1 or PTP. The scheduling can be based on the number of UEs that failed to receive the initial transmission. In addition, it can be based on the UE HARQ-ACK feedback and CSI feedback. … multicast group beamforming for retransmission for the given HPID”).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qualcomm in view of Zhou et al. (US 2023/0071767 A1, hereinafter Zhou) claiming benefit to and fully-supported by US provisional applications 63/117,515 filed Nov. 24, 2020.
Regarding claim 9:
Qualcomm does not explicitly teach a terminal comprising: at least one transceiver; and at least one processor connected to the at least one transceiver.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhou teaches a terminal (see, Zhou: Fig. 15, Wireless Device 1502, support is found in Fig. 15 of 63/117,515) for receiving downlink data in a wireless communication system, the terminal comprising: at least one transceiver (see, Zhou: Fig. 15, TX Processing system 1520 & RX Processing System 1522, support is found in Fig. 15 of 63/117,515); and at least one processor (see, Zhou: Fig. 15, Processing System 1518, support is found in Fig. 15 of 63/117,515) connected to the at least one transceiver.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Qualcomm in combination of the teachings of Zhou in order for the wireless device to perform the method of claim 1 (see, Zhou: Abstract). Therefore, claim 9 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11:
Qualcomm does not explicitly teach a base station comprising: at least one transceiver; and at least one processor connected to the at least one transceiver.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhou teaches a base station (see, Zhou: Fig. 15, Base Station 1504, support is found in Fig. 15 of 63/117,515) for transmitting downlink data in a wireless communication system, the base station comprising: at least one transceiver (see, Zhou: Fig. 15, TX Processing system 1510 & RX Processing System 1512, support is found in Fig. 15 of 63/117,515); and at least one processor (see, Zhou: Fig. 15, Processing System 1508, support is found in Fig. 15 of 63/117,515) connected to the at least one transceiver
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Qualcomm in combination of the teachings of Zhou in order for the base station to perform the method of claim 1 from the perspective of the base station (see, Zhou: Abstract). Therefore, claim 11 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JI-HAE YEA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3310. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI, 7am-3pm, ET.
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, SUJOY K KUNDU can be reached on (571) 272-8586. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JI-HAE YEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471