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
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. KR 102021-0104117, filed on 08/06/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/30/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 states “a computer readable medium” which should read as “a non-transitory computer readable medium”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8, 10-12, 17, & 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TSG-RAN WG1 Meeting #103-e, R1-2009778 (2020), hereinafter 3GPP 1 in view of Soonki et al. (KR 20200016817), hereinafter Soonki.
Re. Claims 1, 3GPP 1 teaches a method of operating an IAB node including a distributed unit (DU) and a mobile terminal (MT) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: determining resource block groups (RBGs) for a first bandwidth part (BWP) of the MT (6.1.2.2.1 – the resource block assignment information includes a bitmap indicating the [RBGs] that are allocated to the scheduled UE where… the size of the bandwidth part is defined in Table 6.1.2.2.1-1), determining a resource block set which is a granularity for setting frequency domain attributes for a second BWP of the DU, wherein based on the first BWP being BWP i, a size of the BWP i being NBWP,isize physical resource blocks (PRBs), a starting PRB of the BWP i being NBWP,istart, and a size of a RBG for the BWP i being P, total number of RBGs for the first BWP (NRBG) is given by NRBG=[(NBWP,isize+(NBWP,istartmod P))/P], wherein, among the NRBG RBGs, a size of a first RBG (RBG0size) is given by RBG0size = P - NBWP,istartmod P, a size of a last RBG (RBGlastsize) is given by a following equation, RBGsizelast =(NBWP,istart + NBWP,isize)mod P if (NBWP,istart + NBWP,isize) mod P>0 and P otherwise, a size of all other RBGs is P (6.1.2.2.1, Page 96 - The total number of RBGs (
PNG
media_image1.png
24
36
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) for a uplink bandwidth part i of size
PNG
media_image2.png
24
41
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PRBs is given by
PNG
media_image3.png
35
248
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where the size of the first RBG is
PNG
media_image4.png
24
160
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, the size of the last RBG is
PNG
media_image5.png
24
196
media_image5.png
Greyscale
if
PNG
media_image6.png
24
157
media_image6.png
Greyscale
and P otherwise, the size of all other RBG is P).
However, 3GPP 1 does not expressly teach wherein the resource block set is determined based on a common resource block (CRB)#0 of the MT.
Yet, Soonki explicitly teaches wherein the resource block set is determined based on a common resource block (CRB)#0 of the MT (Pg. 8, Line 13 - The bandwidth portion may be indicated based on the CRB having the lowest index (referred to as CRB 0). The CRB 0 having the lowest index is also referred to as point A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Soonki to the teaching of 3GPP 1. The motivation for such would be as Soonki provides that a resource block set is determined off of a CRB#0 of the MT (Pg. 8, Line 13, Soonki). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claims 10 and 19, Claims 10 and 19 are the hardware claims performing the method of Claim 1, as such, the majority of these claims are rejected in the same manner.
However, 3GPP 1 does not expressly teach an apparatus comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor operatively coupled with the at least one memory.
Additionally, Soonki teaches the apparatus comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor operatively coupled with the at least one memory (Fig. 27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Soonki to the teaching of 3GPP 1. The motivation for such would be as Soonki provides the claimed hardware (Fig. 27). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claim 20, Claim 20 is the computer readable medium claims performing the method of Claim 1, as such, the majority of these claims are rejected in the same manner. Additionally, Soonki teaches at least one computer readable medium (CRM) (Pg. 38, Line 3 - The processors 11 and 21 may be implemented by hardware or firmware, software, or a combination thereof).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Soonki to the teaching of 3GPP 1. The motivation for such would be as Soonki provides the claimed software (Pg. 38, Line 3, Soonki). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claims 2 and 11, 3GPP 1 and Soonki teach claims 1 and 10.
Additionally, 3GPP 1 further teaches wherein the resource block set comprises N (wherein N is a natural number) physical resource blocks (PRBs) (6.1.2.2.1 - The total number of RBGs (
PNG
media_image1.png
24
36
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) for a uplink bandwidth part i of size
PNG
media_image2.png
24
41
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PRBs is given by
PNG
media_image3.png
35
248
media_image3.png
Greyscale
).
Re. Claim 3 and 12, 3GPP 1 and Soonki teach claims 1 and 10.
However, 3GPP 1 does not expressly teach wherein setting the frequency domain attributes for the second BWP indicates whether a specific frequency resource is configured to be hard, soft, or not-available for the DU.
Yet, Soonki explicitly teaches wherein setting the frequency domain attributes for the second BWP indicates whether a specific frequency resource is configured to be hard, soft, or not-available for the DU (Fig. 23, Pg. 30, Line 1 - the D / U allocation on the MT side includes D (downlink) / F (flexible) / U (uplink) as a resource type. The resource denoted by F may be a flexible resource that may be used as D or U. In terms of D / U allocation in terms of MT, D according to D / U allocation in terms of MT may be referred to as MT-D, U as MT-U, and F as MT-F. The D / U allocation in terms of DU may be indicated as hard D / F / U, soft D / F / U, and not-available (NA) as resource types).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Soonki to the teaching of 3GPP 1. The motivation for such would be as Soonki provides a means for setting the domain attributes based on whether resources are soft, hard, or not available for the DU (Pg. 30, Line 1, Soonki). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claim 8 and 17, 3GPP 1 and Soonki teach claims 1 and 10.
However, 3GPP 1 does not expressly teach wherein a position of CRB#0 of the DU and a position of CRB#0 of the MT are independent of each other.
Yet, Soonki explicitly teaches wherein a position of CRB#0 of the DU and a position of CRB#0 of the MT are independent of each other (Pg. 8, Line 4 - The NR may define a common resource block (CRB) for a given numerology on a given carrier. Examiner interprets that “a given carrier” would indicate different resources such as the MT and DU which can have their own CRB’s defined unique to them).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Soonki to the teaching of 3GPP 1. The motivation for such would be as Soonki provides that the CRB0’s of both the MT and DU are independent (Pg. 8, Line 4, Soonki). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Claims 4-7, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP 1 in view of Soonki and Huang et al. (WO 2020177521 A1), hereinafter Huang.
Re. Claim 4 and 13, 3GPP 1 and Soonki teach claims 1 and 10.
However, the combination of 3GPP 1 and Soonki does not expressly teach wherein when a plurality of serving cells are configured for the MT, a position of the CRB#0 is determined based on a primary cell among the plurality of serving cells.
Yet, Huang explicitly teaches wherein when a plurality of serving cells are configured for the MT, a position of the CRB#0 is determined based on a primary cell among the plurality of serving cells (Pg. 8, Line 24 - The CRB corresponding to the CRB index is located on the downlink carrier of the primary serving cell. The RE index in the CRB is a preset value. The set value is a preset fixed value or a value determined based on the information of the primary serving cell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Huang to the teaching of 3GPP 1 and Soonki. The motivation for such would be as Huang provides that the CRB0’s position is based on a primary cell (Pg. 8, Line 24, Huang). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claim 5 and 14, 3GPP 1 and Soonki teach claims 1 and 10.
However, the combination of 3GPP 1 and Soonki does not expressly teach wherein, when a plurality of serving cells are configured for the MT, a position of the CRB#0 is determined based on a serving cell with a lowest index among the plurality of serving cells
Yet, Huang explicitly teaches wherein, when a plurality of serving cells are configured for the MT, a position of the CRB#0 is determined based on a serving cell with a lowest index among the plurality of serving cells (Pg. 8, Line 23 - The information of the first frequency point is the CRB index corresponding to the frequency of the first frequency point, the CRB corresponding to the CRB index is located on the downlink carrier of the serving cell, and the RE index in the CRB is a preset value , The preset value is a preset fixed value or a value determined based on the information of the serving cell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Huang to the teaching of 3GPP 1 and Soonki. The motivation for such would be as Huang provides that the CRB0’s position is based on a serving cell with the lowest index (Pg. 8, Line 23, Huang). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claim 6 and 15, 3GPP 1 and Soonki teach claims 1 and 10.
However, the combination of 3GPP 1 and Soonki does not expressly teach wherein, when a plurality of serving cells are configured for the MT, a position of the CRB#0 is determined based on a serving cell with a highest index among the plurality of serving cells.
Yet, Huang explicitly teaches wherein, when a plurality of serving cells are configured for the MT, a position of the CRB#0 is determined based on a serving cell with a highest index among the plurality of serving cells (Pg. 8, Line 23 - The information of the first frequency point is the CRB index corresponding to the frequency of the first frequency point, the CRB corresponding to the CRB index is located on the downlink carrier of the serving cell, and the RE index in the CRB is a preset value , The preset value is a preset fixed value or a value determined based on the information of the serving cell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Huang to the teaching of 3GPP 1 and Soonki. The motivation for such would be as Huang provides that the CRB0’s position is based on a serving cell with the highest index (Pg. 8, Line 23, Huang). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claim 7 and 16, 3GPP 1 and Soonki teach claims 1 and 10.
However, the combination of 3GPP 1 and Soonki does not expressly teach wherein, when a plurality of serving cells are configured for the MT, a position of the CRB#0 is determined based on a serving cell indicated by a network among the plurality of serving cells.
Yet, Huang explicitly teaches wherein, when a plurality of serving cells are configured for the MT, a position of the CRB#0 is determined based on a serving cell indicated by a network among the plurality of serving cells (Pg. 8, Line 23 - The information of the first frequency point is the CRB index corresponding to the frequency of the first frequency point, the CRB corresponding to the CRB index is located on the downlink carrier of the serving cell, and the RE index in the CRB is a preset value , The preset value is a preset fixed value or a value determined based on the information of the serving cell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Huang to the teaching of 3GPP 1 and Soonki. The motivation for such would be as Huang provides that the CRB0’s position is based on a serving cell (Pg. 8, Line 23, Huang). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP 1 in view of Soonki and Kurita et al. (WO 2022003781 A1), hereinafter Kurita.
Re. Claim 9 and 18, 3GPP 1 and Soonki teach claims 1 and 10.
However, the combination of 3GPP 1 and Soonki does not expressly teach wherein wherein the MT and the DU perform a frequency division multiplexing (FDM) operation on specific resources.
Yet, Kurita explicitly teaches wherein the MT and the DU perform a frequency division multiplexing (FDM) operation on specific resources (Pg. 6, Line 15 - the wireless communication node 100B enables simultaneous transmission / reception according to FDM by MT and DU of the IAB node).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Kurita to the teaching of 3GPP 1 and Soonki. The motivation for such would be as Kurita provides that the MT and DU perform FDM on specific resources (Pg. 6, Line 15, Kurita). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lin, Ko-Chiang (2022/0046670) - ¶0140-0155, ¶0197
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH JAMES SUGDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7406. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00-6:00 ET, Fri 9:00-1:00 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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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.
/N.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475