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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10, 14, 23, 24, and 28 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 11-13, 15-17, 19-22, 25-27,29, and 30 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 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) 1-3, 5-7, 15-17, 19-21, 29, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2020/0359447) (“Yang”) in view of Bae et al. (US 2024/0073887) (“Bae”).
For claims 1, 15, 29, and 30; Yang discloses: receive, from a network entity, signaling indicating a configuration of monitoring occasions for the UE to monitor for an indication that indicates cancelation of at least a portion of a scheduled physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) or at least a portion of a scheduled physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) (paragraph 10, 83-84, 88: each ULCI in a ULCI occasion may be associated with a certain set of time domain resources (i.e. a window). The base station may inform the UE regarding which set of time domain resources, or window of uplink resources, corresponds to each ULCI occasion. For example, the base station may indicate the set of time domain resources for each ULCI occasion in RRC signaling…PUSCH transmissions, e.g., based on a configured grant that triggers a sequence of uplink transmissions or semi-persistently scheduled uplink transmissions. The UE may be configured with a PUSCH transmission having a configured grant that has a large periodicity, e.g., one PUSCH transmission in every 10 slots. The UE may only monitor the ULCI occasion prior to each configured PUSCH occasion and may skip other ULCI occasions between PUSCH occasions); and selectively monitor a limited subset of the monitoring occasions for the indication (paragraph 7-11, 78-82, 98-100: enable the UE to selectively monitor ULCI occasions, or determine whether to skip monitoring unnecessary ULCI occasions, in order to reduce power consumption burden on the UEs) when at least one condition is met (paragraph 7-11, 78-82, 98-100: rules for selective monitoring of ULCI occasions by UEs), wherein selectively monitoring comprises reducing how often the UE monitors for at least one of downlink control information (DCI) used to convey the indication (paragraph 90: The base station may indicate to the UE whether a scheduled uplink transmission is allowed to be canceled by ULCI (e.g. in downlink control information (DCI)) in the monitoring occasions for a period of time (paragraph 7-11, 78-82, 98-100: the UE may only monitor ULCI occasions if the base station has previously scheduled an uplink transmission for the UE that could potentially be punctured or canceled by an ULCI…When the uplink transmission is dynamically scheduled by an uplink grant, the UE may need some processing time to receive and decode the uplink grant. Therefore, the UE may not monitor a ULCI occasion if the UE does not receive the uplink grant at least a certain number of symbols earlier than the ULCI occasion associated with that uplink transmission).
Yang does not expressly disclose, but Bae from similar fields of endeavor teaches: at least one format of downlink control information (DCI) used to convey the indication (paragraph 194: DCI format 21 may be used to transfer downlink pre-emption information to the UE. DCI format 2_4 may be used to indicate a UL resource for which UL transmission from the UE should be canceled). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the DCI formats for ULCI as described by Bae in the ULCI DCI monitoring as described by Yang. The motivation is to improve resource usage.
For claims 2 and 16; Yang discloses the subject matter in claim 1 as described above in the office action.
Yang does not expressly disclose, but Bae from similar fields of endeavor teaches: receive, from the network entity, signaling indicating the at least one condition (paragraph 202: configuring the PDCCH MO appropriate for the UE by the BS and/or condition(s) for monitoring the UL CI by a given UE). 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 Bae in the ULCI DCI monitoring as described by Yang. The motivation is to improve resource usage.
For claims 3 and 17; Yang discloses the subject matter in claim 1 as described above in the office action.
Yang does not expressly disclose, but Bae from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the indication is conveyed in at least one format of downlink control information (DCI) (paragraph 194: DCI format 2_4 may be used to indicate a UL resource for which UL transmission from the UE should be canceled) (paragraph 212: when the SearchSpace IE includes a DCI format (e.g., DCI format 2_4) of the UL CI, the UE may determine that there is a possibility that the UL CI is transmitted in the MO configured by the SearchSpace IE). 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 Bae in the ULCI DCI monitoring as described by Yang. The motivation is to improve resource usage.
For claims 5 and 19; Yang discloses the subject matter in claim 3 as described above in the office action.
Yang does not expressly disclose, but Bae from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the at least one format of DCI comprises a format used to convey a cancelation indication (CI) that indicates cancelation of at least a portion of a scheduled PUSCH (paragraph 212: when the SearchSpace IE includes a DCI format (e.g., DCI format 2_4) of the UL CI, the UE may determine that there is a possibility that the UL CI is transmitted in the MO configured by the SearchSpace IE). 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 Bae in the ULCI DCI monitoring as described by Yang. The motivation is to improve resource usage.
For claims 6 and 20; Yang discloses: wherein the at least one condition is met when the UE has uplink traffic of a given priority to send (paragraph 90: if the scheduled uplink transmission is itself URLLC data or other high priority data, that data may not be cancellable by a ULCI, and therefore, the UE may skip monitoring the ULCI occasion for that uplink transmission).
For claims 7 and 21; Yang discloses the subject matter in claim 3 as described above in the office action.
Yang does not expressly disclose, but Bae from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the given priority is associated with at least one of: a packet error rate (PER) configuration, a packet delay budget (PDB) configuration, a quality of service (QoS) indicator value, or a remaining uplink delay budget relative to a nominal packet delay budget (paragraph 196: URLLC has the low-latency and high-reliability requirements of a user-plane delay of 0.5 ms and transmission of X bytes of data within 1 ms at or below an error rate of 10.sup.−5). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the criteria as described by Bae in the ULCI DCI monitoring as described by Yang. The motivation is to improve resource usage.
Claim(s) 8 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Bae as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Taherzadeh Boroujeni et al. (US 2024/0015729) (“Taherzadeh Boroujeni”).
For claims 8 and 22; Yang discloses the subject matter in claim 5 as described above in the office action. Yang discloses: wherein the at least one condition is met when at least one delay associated with at least one transmission is greater than a threshold value (paragraph 11, 117: The apparatus receives scheduling information for an uplink transmission from a base station and determines whether to monitor at least one uplink cancellation indication (ULCI) occasion from the base station based on the scheduling information and based on a separation in time between the scheduling information and the ULCI occasion…the base station 1504 has dynamically scheduled an uplink transmission of the UE 1502 that could be potentially be canceled by ULCI (e.g. scheduling information 1506 for eMBB data) having at least one symbol falling within a corresponding window (similar to FIG. 14). Moreover, the dynamically scheduled uplink grant 1506 has been received by UE 1502 at least a threshold number of symbols 1512 earlier than the starting symbol of the CORESET of ULCI occasion).
Yang does not expressly disclose, but Taherzadeh Boroujeni from similar fields of endeavor teaches: at least one logical channel (paragraph 192-193: The WTRU may alternatively determine the transmission profile, or the priority level, based on the highest priority logical channel (LCH) mapped to the transmission, or the LCH that is related to or triggered the transmission… the WTRU may monitor for the CI only if the priority level associated with the transmission, or the transmission profile associated with the transmission, is below a certain threshold). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the ULCI of logical channels as described by Taherzadeh Boroujeni in the PDCCH monitoring as described by Yang. The motivation is to improve resource usage.
Claim(s) 11 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Bae as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Jung et al. (US 2024/0080771) (“Jung”).
For claims 11 and 25; Bae discloses the subject matter in claim 4 as described above in the office action.
Yang does not expressly disclose, but Jung from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the at least one condition is met when the network entity indicates, via at least one bit in the at least one format of DCI, that the UE is to skip or reduce how often it monitors for the at least one format of DCI in the monitoring occasions (paragraph 176: a UE receives a PDCCH skipping indication (e.g., whether to stop/skip PDCCH monitoring or to restart PDCCH monitoring) for each search space set or for each group of search space sets via a DCI format). 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 Jung in the PDCCH monitoring as described by Yang. The motivation is to improve resource usage.
Claim(s) 12, 13, 26, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Bae as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Bhamri et al. (US 2024/0015729) (“Bhamri”).
For claims 12 and 26; Yang discloses the subject matter in claim 4 as described above in the office action.
Yang does not expressly disclose, but Bhamri from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the at least one format of DCI comprises a format used to convey a preemption indication (PI) that indicates cancelation of at least a portion of a scheduled PDSCH (paragraph 116: DCI format 310 for preemption and cancellation indication in symbol 12 and 13 of slot N, which indicates to the UE 205 both A) at least one grid 325 of time-frequency resources for DL preemption (i.e., the DL PI indicated region) and B) at least one additional grid 330 of time-frequency resources for UL cancellation (i.e., the UL PI indicated region). Here, the DL preemption may be due to another, higher priority UE being scheduled for DL reception on resources that overlap with the those scheduled to the UE 205 in the DCI). 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 Bhamri in the PDCCH monitoring as described by Yang. The motivation is to improve resource usage.
For claims 13 and 27; Yang discloses the subject matter in claim 12 as described above in the office action.
Yang does not expressly disclose, but Bhamri from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the at least one condition is met when the network entity schedules downlink traffic of a given priority (paragraph 116: DCI format 310 for preemption and cancellation indication in symbol 12 and 13 of slot N, which indicates to the UE 205 both A) at least one grid 325 of time-frequency resources for DL preemption (i.e., the DL PI indicated region) and B) at least one additional grid 330 of time-frequency resources for UL cancellation (i.e., the UL PI indicated region). Here, the DL preemption may be due to another, higher priority UE being scheduled for DL reception on resources that overlap with the those scheduled to the UE 205 in the DCI). 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 Bhamri in the PDCCH monitoring as described by Yang. The motivation is to improve resource usage.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liu et al. (US 2022/0272557); Liu discloses UE can monitor one or more of the UL CI monitoring occasions CI1-CI4 for the UL CI, which indicates whether the uplink transmission (e.g., the PUSCH 225) is canceled. The UL CI monitoring occasions CI1-CI4 are all available monitoring occasions in the slot configuration period 202 for receiving the UL CI. The UE selects one of the UL CI monitoring occasions CI1-CI4 (referred to as a beginning UL CI monitoring occasion) to begin monitoring for the UL CI.
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
Prosecution Insights