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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim(s) 1, 4-6, 9-11, 14-16, and 19-20 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The original claims were directed to providing a method for cancelling/suspending an SPS configuration based on a BWP switching. For example, the original independent claims recited, in part: “wherein a first semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH), configuration is activated before the first BWP is deactivated and the second BWP is activated:
Wherein the first BWP is deactivated, determining not to process the first SPS PDSCH configuration;
When the second BWP is activated, determining not to process the first SPS PDSCH configuration; and
Determining whether to suspend or clear the first SPS PDSCH configuration…….”
As can be seen from the above excerpt of the invention which was originally under examination the SPS PDSCH configuration was not processed when the first BWP was deactivated, or the when the second BWP was activated. The Applicants disclosure describes the “not processing the SPS” as a suspension or clearance of the SPS PDSCH. Thus, when the first BWP is deactivated and/or the second BWP is activated, the suspension or clearance of the SPS for PDSCH is made.
The new claims are independent and/or distinct from the originally filed claims because the method and system claimed comprises a distinct and different mechanism for determining whether or not to suspend or clear the SPS configuration. In the response dated 12/18/2025 the amended claims now recite, in part:
“receiving, from a base station, information for configuring hybrid automatic repeat request-acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) feedback mode for a first semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) configuration:………
performing to suspend or clear the first SPS PDSCH configuration, in case that the first HARQ-ACK feedback mode is a second mode,…..
wherein the UE is capable of transmitting ACK or negative acknowledgement (NACK) in the first mode, and
wherein the UE is incapable of transmitting ACK or NACK in the second mode”.
As can be clearly seen, the suspension or clearing of the SPS in the amended claims is distinct from the original invention, in that now the claims require that when a first HARQ feedback mode is used the SPS is suspended or cleared. That is, when ACK/NACK feedback mode 1 is used then the SPS is suspended or cleared. This is distinct from the originally filed claims wherein the SPS is suspended or cleared based on the deactivation of the first BWP and the activation of the second BWP. Additionally, the amendments were not present in the dependent claims as originally filed and the amended claims now are directed a distinct method for suspending SPS. In the amended, and now pending claims, the activation or deactivation of the BWP plays no part in the evaluation of whether the SPS is suspended or cleared. As stated in the Advisory Action dated 12/01/2025, the claims if originally presented with the original claim set would have been subject to restriction for presenting an unnecessary search burden on the examiner by requiring different search strings, and different classification (H04W72/02 and H04L1/08) respectively.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim(s) 1, 4-6, 9-11, 14-16, and 19-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Below a rejection of the elected invention corresponding to the previous claim set is made.
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) 1, 4, 6, 9, 11, 14, 16, and 19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US 2025/0039791 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 6, in view of Gao (US 2021/0058197 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Guo discloses:
a terminal (fig.2 depicts a terminal 204) in a wireless communications system (fig.2 depicts a wireless communications system), the terminal comprising:
a transceiver (fig.2 element 230) configured to transmit and receive signals (par.[0027 and 0029] describes reception and transmission of signals); and
a controller (fig.2 element 236) coupled to the transceiver (fig.2 the elements 236 and 230 are coupled together) and configured to:
determine that a first bandwidth part (BWP) is deactivated and a second BWP is activated (par.[0064] describes the UE receiving a BWP switching request wherein the UL and/or DL BWP is switched from an active BWP to a new BWP, as discussed in par.[0064]. The switching the BWP causes the active BWP to be in a deactivated state, and the new BWP becomes the active BWP), and
wherein a first semi-persistent scheduling physical downlink shared channel (SPS PDSCH) configuration is activated before the first BWP is deactivated and the second BWP is activated (par.[0279 – 0282] describes the specific BWP being in conflict with the DL SPS configuration which was previously configured, par.[0286] discloses that the specific BWP is activated (e.g. BWP switching) the DL SPS is terminated, released, or suspended, par.[0278] if the BWP for DL SPS is different from the first parameter set configuration of the specific BWP (e.g. the original active BWP is configured differently e.g. uplink BWP), the scheduling on DL SPS will be released, terminated, or suspended, within a time-offset of the active of the new/specific BWP, wherein, par.[0288] describes the DL SPS being deactivated before or after the activation of the new/specific BWP)
when the first BWP is deactivated, determining not to process the first SPS PDSCH configuration; (par.[0286] discloses that the specific BWP is activated (e.g. BWP switching) the DL SPS is terminated, released, or suspended, par.[0278] if the BWP for DL SPS is different from the first parameter set configuration of the specific BWP (e.g. the original active BWP is configured differently e.g. uplink BWP), the scheduling on DL SPS will be released, terminated, or suspended, within a time-offset of the active of the new/specific BWP, wherein, par.[0288] describes the DL SPS being deactivated before or after the activation of the new/specific BWP);
wherein the second BWP is activated, determining not to process the first SPS PDSCH configuration (as discussed above the UE may be signaled to switch to a specific BWP, wherein the SPS configuration was associated with a first BWP, and when the second BWP is activated the SPS of the first BWP is deactivated and the SPS isn’t processed, as the SPS is deactivated, par.[0287 – 0288]); and
determining whether to suspend or clear the first SPS PDSCH configuration (par.[0286 – 0288] describes when the BWP is switched to the specific BWP, then the SPS for the original BWP is released or suspended).
While the disclosure of Guo teaches deactivating the DL SPS it does not disclose:
and, wherein the first BWP and the second BWP are uplink (UL) BWPs.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Gao teaches:
And, wherein the first BWP and the second BWP are uplink (UL) BWPs (par.[0090] describes DL and/or UL BWP switching, par.[0091] describes FDD BWP switching for UL/DL BWP, par.[0097 – 0098] describe when the UL BWP switching occurs, the previously activated DL SPS resources are deactivated).
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 Guo for processing an SPS configuration with the disclosure of Gao for processing a BWP switching altering a SPS configuration. The motivation/suggestion would have been to provide a means for sending accurate HARQ feedback to downlink transmissions (Gao: par.[0007]).
Regarding claim 4, 9, 14, and 19, the disclosure of Guo teaches BWP switching, and further discloses:
determining that a third BWP is deactivated and a fourth BWP is activated, wherein a second SPS PDSCH configuration is active before the third BWP is deactivated and the fourth BWP is activated (par.[0064] describes the UE receiving a BWP switching request wherein the UL and/or DL BWP is switched from an active BWP to a new BWP, as discussed in par.[0064]. The switching the BWP causes the active BWP to be in a deactivated state, and the new BWP becomes the active BWP);
determining whether to suspend the second SPS PDSCH configuration (par.[0279 – 0282] describes the specific BWP being in conflict with the DL SPS configuration which was previously configured, par.[0286] discloses that the specific BWP is activated (e.g. BWP switching) the DL SPS is terminated, released, or suspended); or
determining whether to clear the second SPS PDSCH configuration when the fourth BWP is activated (par.[0279 – 0282] as discussed above, describes suspending or releasing the SPS when the BWP is switched);
determining whether to restore the second SPS PDSCH configuration (par.[0279 – 0282] describes when the BWP is activated the SPS for that particular BWP can be activated); or
determining whether to clear the second SPS PDSCH configuration (par.[0287] describes when the BWP is switched, then the BWP that is switched from may suspend and/or release the SPS that was configured for that BWP), and
wherein the third BWP and the fourth BWP are DL BWPs.
While the disclosure of Guo teaches BWP switching and UL/DL SPS configurations, it may not explicitly disclose the switching of an DL BWP to another DL BWP.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Gao, as discussed above, teaches:
wherein the third BWP and the fourth BWP are DL BWPs (par.[0006] describes DL BWP switch and/or UL BWP switching).
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 Guo for processing an SPS configuration with the disclosure of Gao for processing a BWP switching altering a SPS configuration. The motivation/suggestion would have been to provide a means for sending accurate HARQ feedback to downlink transmissions (Gao: par.[0007])
Regarding claims 11 and 16, Guo discloses:
a base station (fig.1 depicts a base station element 102) in a wireless communication system (fig.1 depicts a wireless communications system), the base station comprising:
a transceiver (fig.2 depicts a transceiver on a base station element 210) configured to transmit and receive signals (par.[0029] describes transmitting and receiving signals); and
a controller (fig.2 element 214 discloses a processor) coupled to the transceiver (fig.2 depicts the processor being communicatively coupled to the transceiver) and configured to:
determine that a first bandwidth part (BWP) is deactivated and a second BWP is activated (par.[0064] describes the UE receiving a BWP switching request wherein the UL and/or DL BWP is switched from an active BWP to a new BWP, as discussed in par.[0064]. The switching the BWP causes the active BWP to be in a deactivated state, and the new BWP becomes the active BWP), and
wherein a first semi-persistent scheduling physical downlink shared channel (SPS PDSCH) configuration is activated before the first BWP is deactivated and the second BWP is activated (par.[0279 – 0282] describes the specific BWP being in conflict with the DL SPS configuration which was previously configured, par.[0286] discloses that the specific BWP is activated (e.g. BWP switching) the DL SPS is terminated, released, or suspended, par.[0278] if the BWP for DL SPS is different from the first parameter set configuration of the specific BWP (e.g. the original active BWP is configured differently e.g. uplink BWP), the scheduling on DL SPS will be released, terminated, or suspended, within a time-offset of the active of the new/specific BWP, wherein, par.[0288] describes the DL SPS being deactivated before or after the activation of the new/specific BWP)
when the first BWP is deactivated, determining not to process the first SPS PDSCH configuration; (par.[0286] discloses that the specific BWP is activated (e.g. BWP switching) the DL SPS is terminated, released, or suspended, par.[0278] if the BWP for DL SPS is different from the first parameter set configuration of the specific BWP (e.g. the original active BWP is configured differently e.g. uplink BWP), the scheduling on DL SPS will be released, terminated, or suspended, within a time-offset of the active of the new/specific BWP, wherein, par.[0288] describes the DL SPS being deactivated before or after the activation of the new/specific BWP);
wherein the second BWP is activated, determining not to process the first SPS PDSCH configuration (as discussed above the UE may be signaled to switch to a specific BWP, wherein the SPS configuration was associated with a first BWP, and when the second BWP is activated the SPS of the first BWP is deactivated and the SPS isn’t processed, as the SPS is deactivated, par.[0287 – 0288]); and
determining whether to suspend or clear the first SPS PDSCH configuration (par.[0286 – 0288] describes when the BWP is switched to the specific BWP, then the SPS for the original BWP is released or suspended).
While the disclosure of Guo teaches deactivating the DL SPS it does not disclose:
and, wherein the first BWP and the second BWP are uplink (UL) BWPs.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Gao teaches:
And, wherein the first BWP and the second BWP are uplink (UL) BWPs (par.[0090] describes DL and/or UL BWP switching, par.[0091] describes FDD BWP switching for UL/DL BWP, par.[0097 – 0098] describe when the UL BWP switching occurs, the previously activated DL SPS resources are deactivated).
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 Guo for processing an SPS configuration with the disclosure of Gao for processing a BWP switching altering a SPS configuration. The motivation/suggestion would have been to provide a means for sending accurate HARQ feedback to downlink transmissions (Gao: par.[0007]).
Claim(s) 3, 8, 13, and 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo and Gao as applied to claims 1, 6, 11, and 16, in view of Wang (US 2021/0218504 A1).
Regarding claims 3, 8, 13, and 18, Guo and Gao discloses the claim 2 and determining whether to suspend or clear the first SPS PDSCH configuration activated, but does not disclose:
determining whether to suspend or clear the first SPS PDSCH configuration includes at least one of:
determining whether to suspend or clear the first SPS PDSCH configuration based on an associated hybrid automatic repeat request-acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) feedback mode;
determining whether to suspend or the clear the first SPS PDSCH configuration based on configuration information on whether to receive a SPS PDSCH, wherein the information is received from a base station via a higher layer signaling
determining whether to suspend or clear the first SPS PDSCH configuration based on a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) time unit associated with the first BWP and a PUCCH time unit associated with the second BWP;
determining whether to suspend or clear the SPS PDSCH configuration based on a set of timing parameters K1 associated with the first BWP and a set of timing parameters K1 associated with the second BWP, wherein the set of timing parameters K1 is used for a HARQ-ACK information transmission; or
determining whether to suspend or clear the SPS PDSCH configuration based on an associated HARQ-ACK codebook type.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Wang teaches:
determining whether to suspend or clear the SPS PDSCH configuration activated before the first BWP is deactivated and the second BWP is activated includes at least one of:
determining whether to suspend or clear the SPS PDSCH configuration based on an associated hybrid automatic repeat request-acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) feedback mode (par.[0163] describes the HARQ-ACK feedback codebook of SPS configuration);
determining whether to suspend or clear the SPS PDSCH configuration based on configuration information on whether to receive a SPS PDSCH, wherein the configuration information is received from a base station via a higher layer signaling (par.[0163] describes an RRC parameter overriding the DCI);
determining whether to suspend or clear the first SPS PDSCH configuration based on a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) time unit associated with the first BWP and a PUCCH time unit associated with the second BWP;
determining whether to suspend or clear the SPS PDSCH configuration based on a set of timing parameters K1 associated with the first BWP and a set of timing parameters K1 associated with the second BWP, wherein the set of timing parameters K1 is used for a HARQ-ACK information transmission; or
determining whether to suspend or clear the SPS PDSCH configuration based on an associated HARQ-ACK codebook type.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Guo and Gao for BWP switching with the disclosure of Wang which teaches a release of SPS downlink resources. The motivation/suggestion would have been to properly coordinate SPS configurations on bandwidth parts.
Claim(s) 5, 10, 15, and 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo as applied to claims 1 and 6, in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0231818 A1).
Regarding claims 5, 10, 15, and 20, Guo discloses BWP switching as discussed in the independent claims above, but does not disclose:
determine whether to clear or initialize the second SPS PDSCH configuration, based on whether a multicast broadcast service (MBS) common frequency resource (CFR) associated with the first BWP is same as an MBS CFR associated with the second BWP;
determine whether to clear or initialize the second SPS PDSCH configuration, based on configuration information related to whether to receive a SPS PDSCH for a multicast, wherein the configuration information is received from a base station via a higher layer signaling;
determine whether to clear or initialize the second SPS PDSCH configuration, based on whether frequency domain resources of a SPS PDSCH for the SPS PDSCH configuration are included in the MBS CFR associated with the second BWP;
determine whether to clear or initialize the second SPS PDSCH configuration and the second BWP is activated based on whether the SPS PDSCH configuration activated before the first BWP is deactivated and the second BWP is activated is included in a SPS PDSCH configuration list for the MBS CFR associated with the second BWP; or
determine whether to clear or initialize the second SPS PDSCH configuration, based on whether frequency domain resources of a SPS PDSCH for the SPS PDSCH configuration are included in the second BWP.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Lee teaches:
determine whether to clear or initialize the second SPS PDSCH configuration, based on whether a multicast broadcast service (MBS) common frequency resource (CFR) associated with the first BWP is same as an MBS CFR associated with the second BWP (par.[0219 – 0221] describes switching one SPS configuration to another based on the switching of the BWP associated with the new MBS/SPS configuration);
determine whether to clear or initialize the second SPS PDSCH configuration, based on configuration information related to whether to receive a SPS PDSCH for a multicast, wherein the configuration information is received from a base station via a higher layer signaling;
determine whether to clear or initialize the second SPS PDSCH configuration, based on whether frequency domain resources of a SPS PDSCH for the SPS PDSCH configuration are included in the MBS CFR associated with the second BWP;
determine whether to clear or initialize the second SPS PDSCH configuration based on whether the SPS PDSCH configuration activated before the first BWP is deactivated and the second BWP is activated is included in a SPS PDSCH configuration list for the MBS CFR associated with the second BWP; or
determine whether to clear or initialize the second SPS PDSCH configuration, based on whether frequency domain resources of a SPS PDSCH for the SPS PDSCH configuration are included in the second BWP.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective to combine the teachings of Guo for BWP switching with the SPS switching as discussed in Lee. The motivation/suggestion would have been to correctly transmit and receive MBMS data from the network.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhang et al. (US 2018/0288746 A1) “Methods and Systems for Resource Configuration of Wireless Communications Systems” (describes deactivation or activation of SPS using higher layer signaling)
Park et al. (US 2019/0104539 A1) “Method and Apparatus for Configuring Resources and Transmitting/Receiving Data in Wireless Cellular Communication System” (Describes the UL/DL BWP being a same BWP and releasing the SPS resources when the BWP is switched par.[0137])
Pan et al. (US 2019/0215900 A1) “Method and Apparatus of Handling Bandwidth Part Inactivity Timer in A Wireless Communications System”
Deogun et al. (US 2022/0053534 A1) “Method and Network Node for Performing Data Transmission and Measurement on Multiple Bandwidth Parts”
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