DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to applicant’s response filed under 37 C.F.R §1.111 in response to a non-final office action. Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 9, 11-13, 17, and 19-20 have been amended; No claims have been canceled; No claim(s) have been added. Claim(s) 1-20 are subject to examination.
Acknowledgement is made to the applicant’s amendment to claims 7, 9, and 17 to obviate the previous claim objection to claims 7, 9, and 17. The previous claim objection to claims 7, 9, and 17 is/are hereby withdrawn.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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 § 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 11, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CHOU et al. (US 20180227886 A1), hereby referred to as CHOU.
Claim 1:
CHOU teaches a method in an apparatus for receiving downlink control information (DCI) , the method comprising: receiving, by the apparatus, a first stage DCI scrambled by a radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) in a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) (CHOU: FIG. 2B item 210B first stage DCI in PDCCH and para 5 (“The UE can determine the DCI configuration…based on…RNTI…the UE would blindly decode the DCI from the base station without any knowledge of which…RNTI the DCI currently uses.”) wherein a first stage DCI can be scrambled/use an RNTI), wherein the first stage DCI explicitly indicates a scheduling information of a second stage DCI (CHOU: para 59 (“…the resource allocation of the second stage DCI may be indicated to the UE in advance by the first stage DCI.”) wherein scheduling information is the resource allocation); receiving, by the apparatus, the second stage DCI in a first physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) (CHOU: FIG. 2B item 220B second stage DCI in PDSCH), wherein the first PDSCH is a physical channel without data transmission (CHOU: FIG. 2B wherein PDSCH only has second stage DCI/no data transmission); wherein the second stage DCI corresponds to a second stage DCI format (CHOU: para 64 (“…second stage DCI (e.g., beam-specific/UE-specific)…”)), which is one of multiple possible different DCI formats, each DCI format having a respective different usage for scheduling, wherein different DCI formats can correspond to scheduling different types of transmissions (CHOU: para 64 (“…second stage DCI (e.g., beam-specific/UE-specific)…”) wherein different formats are used for scheduling either beam-specific or UE-specific information and para 76 (“…different formats/configurations of the second stage DCI may be used in different implementations.”) wherein there are multiple possible DCI formats for different uses), and wherein the apparatus obtains an indication of the second stage DCI format based on at least one of the first stage DCI and the second stage DCI (CHOU: para 62-64 (“The first stage DCI may also contain information of the second stage DCI…The first stage DCI may contain…a format/configuration of the second stage DCI (e.g., beam-specific/UE-specific)…”) wherein the information is the indication).
Claim 11:
CHOU teaches a method in a network device for transmitting downlink control information (DCI), the method comprising: transmitting, by the network device, a first stage DCI scrambled by a radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) in a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) ) (CHOU: FIG. 2B item 210B first stage DCI in PDCCH and para 5 (“The UE can determine the DCI configuration…based on…RNTI…the UE would blindly decode the DCI from the base station without any knowledge of which…RNTI the DCI currently uses.”) wherein a first stage DCI can be scrambled/use an RNTI), wherein the first stage DCI explicitly indicates a scheduling information of a second stage DCI (CHOU: para 59 (“…the resource allocation of the second stage DCI may be indicated to the UE in advance by the first stage DCI.”) wherein scheduling information is the resource allocation); transmitting, by the network device, the second stage DCI in a first physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) (CHOU: FIG. 2B item 220B second stage DCI in PDSCH), wherein the first PDSCH is a physical channel without data transmission (CHOU: FIG. 2B wherein PDSCH only has second stage DCI/no data transmission); wherein the second stage DCI corresponds to a second stage DCI format (CHOU: para 64 (“…second stage DCI (e.g., beam-specific/UE-specific)…”)), which is one of multiple possible different DCI formats, each DCI format having a respective different usage for scheduling, wherein different DCI formats can correspond to scheduling different types of transmissions (CHOU: para 64 (“…second stage DCI (e.g., beam-specific/UE-specific)…”) wherein different formats are used for scheduling either beam-specific or UE-specific information and para 76 (“…different formats/configurations of the second stage DCI may be used in different implementations.”) wherein there are multiple possible DCI formats for different uses), and wherein the network device indicates the second stage DCI format based on at least one of the first stage DCI and the second stage DCI (CHOU: para 62-64 (“The first stage DCI may also contain information of the second stage DCI…The first stage DCI may contain…a format/configuration of the second stage DCI (e.g., beam-specific/UE-specific)…”) wherein the information is the indication).
Claim 19:
CHOU teaches an apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing processor-executable instructions (CHOU: FIG. 7A wherein the apparatus is a UE).
For further limitations, see rejection for claim 1 above.
Claim 20:
CHOU teaches network device comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing processor-executable instructions (CHOU: FIG. 7A wherein the network device is the TRP).
For further limitations, see rejection for claim 11 above.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOU in view of YUAN et al. (US 20230232407 A1) (see 892 08/04/2025), hereby referred to as YUAN.
Claim 2:
CHOU teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the apparatus obtains the indication of the second stage DCI format based on one of the following: N bits of the scheduling information in the first stage DCI or in the second stage DCI indicating the second stage DCI format (CHOU: para 59 (“…the resource allocation of the second stage DCI may be indicated to the UE in advance by the first stage DCI.”) wherein scheduling information/resource allocation takes up multiple bits in the first stage DCI).
However, CHOU does not explicitly disclose based on the RNTI is a unified group common RNTI.
YUAN, in the same field of endeavor, teaches based on the RNTI is a unified group common RNTI (YUAN: para 214 (“…the base station may scramble the first DCI based on an RNTI that is common to a group of UEs…transmit, to the group of UEs, the first DCI over the first resource…including an indication of second resource for the second DCI…”) wherein the indication of second DCI format within first DCI is masked by an RNTI that is a unified group common RNTI).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified CHOU with YUAN for the benefit of coordinating cooperative and collaborative functionalities between a plurality of UEs (YUAN: para 93).
Claim 12:
CHOU teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the network device indicates the second stage DCI format (CHOU: para 59 (“…the resource allocation of the second stage DCI may be indicated to the UE in advance by the first stage DCI.”)). For further limitations, see rejection for claim 2 above.
Claim(s) 3, 5-6, 13, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOU in view of “Multiplexing and channel coding”, 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; (Release 16), 3GPP TS 38.212 V16.2.0, June 2020, 151 pages, hereby referred to as TS38.212 (see IDS 08/21/2023).
Claim 3:
CHOU teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the second stage DCI format comprises a predefined relationship between at least one second stage DCI format indicator and at least one scheduling information format, and the at least one scheduling information format comprising one of the following: a format for scheduling one physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) in one carrier; a format for scheduling one PDSCH in one carrier; a format for scheduling multiple PUSCH with separate modulation and coding scheme (MCS)/new data indicator (NDI)/redundancy version (RV) in one carrier or in multiple carriers; a format for scheduling multiple PDSCH with separate MCS/NDI/RV in one carrier or in multiple carriers; a format for scheduling one PDSCH and one PUSCH in one carrier or in multiple carriers; a format for scheduling one/multiple PDSCH and one/multiple PUSCH in one carrier or in multiple carriers; a format for scheduling sidelink in one carrier or multiple carriers; a format for including scheduling information and user equipment (UE); a format for indicating slot format; a format for pre-emption indication; a format for power control for PUSCH or PUCCH; a format for power control for sounding reference signal (SRS).
TS38.212, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the second stage DCI format comprises a predefined relationship between at least one second stage DCI format indicator and at least one scheduling information format (TS38.212: pg 85 Table 7.3.1-1 DCI formats wherein DCI formats have a relationship with scheduling information/usage), and the at least one scheduling information format comprising one of the following: a format for scheduling one physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) in one carrier (TS38.212: pg 85 Table 7.2.1-1 (“Scheduling of PUSCH in one cell”)); a format for scheduling one PDSCH in one carrier (TS38.212: pg 85 Table 7.2.1-1 (“Scheduling of PDSCH in one cell”)); a format for scheduling sidelink in one carrier (TS38.212: pg 85 Table 7.2.1-1 (“Scheduling of NR sidelink in one cell”) and (“Scheduling of LTE sidelink in one cell”)); a format for indicating slot format (TS38.212: pg 85 Table 7.2.1-1 (“Notifying a group of UEs of the slot format…”)); and a format for power control for sounding reference signal (SRS) (TS38.212: pg 85 Table 7.2.1-1 (“Transmission of a group of TPC commands for SRS transmissions by one or more UEs”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the second stage DCI of CHOU with the DCI format of TS38.212 for the benefit of determining resource usage (TS38.212: pg 84-85).
Claim 5:
CHOU teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein: a number of information bits in the second stage DCI is the same as a transport block (TB) size of the first PDSCH.
TS38.212, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a number of information bits in the second stage DCI is the same as a transport block (TB) size of the first PDSCH (TS38.212: pg 85-86 section 7.3.1.0 DCI size alignment (“…if the number of information bits in the DCI format…prior to padding is less than the payload size of the DCI format 1_0….a number of zero padding bits are generated for the DCI format…until the payload size equals that of the DCI format 1_0.”) wherein information bits is made to equal the size of the TBS and wherein a transport block size of the first PDCSH is a payload size corresponding to the DCI format 1_) for scheduling the first PDSCH).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the second stage DCI of CHOU with the DCI format of TS38.212 for the benefit of determining resource usage (TS38.212: pg 84-85).
Claim 6:
CHOU teaches The method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein: when a number of information bits in the second stage DCI prior to padding is less than a total number of bits of a transport block carrying the second stage DCI, a number of zero or one padding bits are generated for the second stage DCI such that the number of bits equals that of the TB carrying the second stage DCI; and when a number of information bits in the second stage DCI prior to truncation is greater than a total number of bits of a transport block (TB) carrying the second stage DCI, the bits included in the second stage DCI are truncated such that the number of bits equals that of the TB carrying the second stage DCI.
TS38.212, in the same field of endeavor, teaches when a number of information bits in the second stage DCI prior to padding is less than a total number of bits of a transport block carrying the second stage DCI, a number of zero or one padding bits are generated for the second stage DCI such that the number of bits equals that of the TB carrying the second stage DCI (TS38.212: pg 85-86 (“…if the number of information bits in the DCI format…prior to padding is less than the payload size of the DCI format 1_0….a number of zero padding bits are generated for the DCI format…until the payload size equals that of the DCI format 1_0.”) wherein information bits is made to equal the size of the TBS and wherein a transport block size of the first PDCSH is a payload size corresponding to the DCI format 1_) for scheduling the first PDSCH); and when a number of information bits in the second stage DCI prior to truncation is greater than a total number of bits of a transport block (TB) carrying the second stage DCI, the bits included in the second stage DCI are truncated such that the number of bits equals that of the TB carrying the second stage DCI (TS38.212: pg 86 (“…if the number of information bits in the DCI format…is larger than the payload size of the DCI format 1_0….reduced by truncating such that the size of DCI format…equal that size of the DCI format 1_0.”) wherein information bits is made to equal the size of the TBS and wherein a transport block size of the first PDCSH is a payload size corresponding to the DCI format 1_) for scheduling the first PDSCH).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the second stage DCI of CHOU with the DCI format of TS38.212 for the benefit of determining resource usage (TS38.212: pg 84-85).
Claim 13:
CHOU teaches the method of claim 11. For further limitations, see rejection for claim 3 above.
Claim 15:
CHOU teaches the method of claim 11. For further limitations, see rejection for claim 5 above.
Claim 16:
CHOU teaches the method of claim 11. For further limitations, see rejection for claim 6 above.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOU in view of YUAN, the combination hereby referred to as CHOU-YUAN, and in further view of TS38.212.
Claim 4:
CHOU-YUAN teaches the method of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the specific group common RNTI comprises one of slot format indication (SFI)-RNTI, INT-RNTI, transmit power control (TPC)-PUSCH-RNTI, TPC-physical uplink control channel (PUCCH)-RNTI, TPC-sounding reference symbol (SRS)-RNTI.
TS38.212, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the specific group common RNTI comprises one of slot format indication (SFI)-RNTI (TS38.212: pg 138 (“…scrambled by SFI-RNTI…”)), INT-RNTI (TS38.212: pg 138 (“…scrambled by INT-RNTI…”)), transmit power control (TPC)-PUSCH-RNTI (TS38.212: pg 138 (“…scrambled by TPC-PUSCH-RNTI…”)), TPC-sounding reference symbol (SRS)-RNTI (TS38.212: pg 138 (“…scrambled by TPC-SRS-RNTI…”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the second stage DCI of CHOU-YUAN with the DCI format of TS38.212 for the benefit of determining resource usage (TS38.212: pg 84-85).
Claim 14:
CHOU-YUAN teaches the method of claim 12. For further limitations, see rejection for claim 4 above.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YUAN in view of REN et al. (US 20240267710 A1) (see 892 08/04/2025), hereby referred to as REN.
Claim 7:
YUAN teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein: the scheduling information comprises 1 bit indicating an AI mode or a non-AI mode.
REN, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the scheduling information comprises 1 bit indicating an AI mode or a non-AI mode (REN: para 89 (“The DCI may be a group common DCI…ML group switching field may be one-bit…”) wherein DCI can include scheduling information regarding an AI mode) (Alternatively, any one bit can be interpreted to mean non-AI mode for a DCI that does not enable AI).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified YUAN with REN for the benefit of dynamically determining best variables for communication (REN: para 66-79).
Claim 17:
YUAN teaches the method of claim 11. For further limitations, see rejection for claim 7 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 and 18 is 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. Claims 9 and 10 are similarly objected as being depending on claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
LIAO et al. (US 20180092070 A1).
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 ANGELIE T NGO whose telephone number is (571)272-0180. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur: 8am - 5pm; 2nd Fri: 8am - 3pm.
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, Noel Beharry can be reached at (571) 270-5630. 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.
/A.T.N./ Examiner, Art Unit 2416
/NOEL R BEHARRY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2416