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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the amendment filed 10/29/2025. Claim 2 has been canceled; claims 1 and 3-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
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.
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 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 1, 3-5, 18-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rico Alvarino et al (US 2022/0046587 A1), hereinafter Rico in view of Mohammed Mikaeil al (US Pub. No. 2024/0215052 A1) hereinafter “Mohammed”.
Regarding claim 1, Rico discloses “configuring, by a wireless communication node, a first bandwidth part to a first wireless communication device” (see Rico ¶ 0066; a wireless device may be configured with multiple DL BWPs; enable a wireless device to be configured with multiple multicast BWPs.); “wherein a multicast control channel (MCCH) for the first wireless communication device is transmitted in the first bandwidth part” (see Rico ¶ 0070; the MCCH and Multicast Traffic Channel (MTCH) may be associated with different DL frequency resources for multicast communication. As a specific example, the MCCH may use an initial multicast BWP and the MTCH may use a different BWP). Also, Rico teaches the claimed feature of “and configuring, by the wireless communication node, a second bandwidth part to the first wireless communication device” (see Rico ¶ 0066; a wireless device may be configured with multiple DL BWPs; enable a wireless device to be configured with multiple multicast BWPs). Moreover, Rico discloses the limitation of “wherein a multicast traffic channel (MTCH) for the first wireless communication device is transmitted in the second bandwidth part” (see Rico ¶ 0070; the MCCH and Multicast Traffic Channel (MTCH) may be associated with different DL frequency resources for multicast communication. As a specific example, the MCCH may use an initial multicast BWP and the MTCH may use a different BWP).
Rico does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the first bandwidth part is shared by the first wireless communication device with a second wireless communication device to transmit the MCCH” and “wherein at least one of the first bandwidth part, the second bandwidth part, or a third bandwidth part is shared by the first wireless communication device with the second wireless communication device, to transmit a MTCH for the second wireless communication device”. However, Mohammed disclose “wherein the first bandwidth part is shared by the first wireless communication device with a second wireless communication device to transmit the MCCH; (See Mohammed ¶ 003; different UEs receiving MCCH and MTCH data without switching the BWP [hint. The MCCH and MTCH received by UEs using the same BWP]) ; “and wherein at least one of the first bandwidth part, the second bandwidth part, or a third bandwidth part is shared by the first wireless communication device with the second wireless communication device, to transmit a MTCH for the second wireless communication device” (See Mohammed ¶ 003; different UEs receiving MCCH and MTCH data without switching the BWP [hint. The MCCH and MTCH received by UEs using the same BWP]));. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Rico and Mohammed before him or her, to modify the invention of Rico to enable the system to share the same BWP to receive MCCH and MTCH. The suggestion for doing so would have been to improve the performance of the system by reducing the signaling overhead of the base station and the UEs (¶ 0033) .
Regarding claim 3, claim 1 is incorporated as stated above. In addition, Rico further discloses “:configuring, by the wireless communication node, a third bandwidth part to the second wireless communication device, wherein a MTCH for the second wireless communication device is transmitted in the third bandwidth part”; (see Rico ¶ 0063; BWP may be a wireless device common BWP configured to be used by all wireless devices in communication with the base station and ¶ 0070 the MCCH and Multicast Traffic Channel (MTCH) may be associated with different DL frequency resources for multicast communication. As a specific example, the MCCH may use an initial multicast BWP and the MTCH may use a different BWP).
Regarding claim 4, claim 1 is incorporated as stated above. In addition, Rico further discloses “wherein the first bandwidth part is shared between the first wireless communication device and a second wireless communication device, to transmit a MTCH for the second wireless communication device”; (see Rico ¶ 0063; BWP may be a wireless device common BWP configured to be used by all wireless devices in communication with the base station and ¶ 0070 the MCCH and Multicast Traffic Channel (MTCH) may be associated with different DL frequency resources for multicast communication. As a specific example, the MCCH may use an initial multicast BWP and the MTCH may use a different BWP).
Regarding claim 5, claim 1 is incorporated as stated above. In addition, Rico further discloses “wherein the second bandwidth part is shared between the first wireless communication device and a second wireless communication device, to transmit a MTCH for the second wireless communication device”; (see Rico ¶ 0063; BWP may be a wireless device common BWP configured to be used by all wireless devices in communication with the base station and ¶ 0070 the MCCH and Multicast Traffic Channel (MTCH) may be associated with different DL frequency resources for multicast communication. As a specific example, the MCCH may use an initial multicast BWP and the MTCH may use a different BWP).
Claim 18 is the method claim corresponding to the method claim 1 that has been rejected above. Applicant attention is directed to the rejection of claim 1. Claim 18 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Claim 19 is the wireless node claim corresponding to the method claim 1 that has been rejected above. Applicant attention is directed to the rejection of claim 1. Claim 19 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Claim 20 is the wireless device claim corresponding to the method claim 1 that has been rejected above. Applicant attention is directed to the rejection of claim 1. Claim 19 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Claims 6-12 are rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rico Alvarino et al (US 2022/0046587 A1), hereinafter Rico in view of Mohammed Mikaeil al (US Pub. No. 2024/0215052 A1) hereinafter “Mohammed” and further in view of Su et al (US Pub. No. 2021/0127396 A1).
Most of the limitations of claim 6 have been noted in the rejection of claim 2. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 2 above. Rico does not appear to explicitly disclose a transmitting, by the wireless communication node, a first physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) transmission on a first resource set to the first wireless communication device, and a second PDSCH transmission on a second resource set to the second wireless communication device, the first resource set at least partially shares resources with the second resource set in time domain and frequency domain of the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device, wherein the shared resources comprise transmitting a same data to the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device. However, Su discloses a transmitting, by the wireless communication node, a first physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) transmission on a first resource set to the first wireless communication device; (See Su ¶ 0317; The first PDSCH is transmitted by the base station to the relay UE (first device); “and a second PDSCH transmission on a second resource set to the second wireless communication device” (See Su ¶ 0317; and the second PDSCH is transmitted by the relay UE to the remote UE (second device); Fig. 23 shows that the base station transmit the second PDSCH directly to the remote UE); “the first resource set at least partially shares resources with the second resource set in time domain and frequency domain of the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device” (See Su ¶ 0279; the frequency domain resources used by the data channel of the remote UE received by the relay UE and these used by the data channel forwarded by the relay UE have a predefined relationship, for example, both of the frequency domain resources are the same); “wherein the shared resources comprise transmitting a same data to the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device” (See Su ¶ 0317 ; the first PDSCH and the second PDSCH carry the same downlink data information of the remote UE ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Rico and Su before him or her, to modify the invention of Rico to enable the system to transmit multiple PDSCHs to multiple UEs using predefined common or same resources. The suggestion for doing so would have been to improve the performance of the system.
Regarding claim 7, claim 6 is incorporated as stated above. In addition, the combination of Rico and Su further discloses “wherein the first PDSCH transmission and the second PDSCH transmission are scheduled by downlink control information (DCI) mapping to a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH).”; (see Su ¶ 0308; In an example, the first PDCCH corresponds to one DCI, and the DCI includes scheduling information of the first PDSCH and the second PDSCH).
Regarding claim 8, claim 7 is incorporated as stated above. In addition, the combination of Rico and Su further discloses “wherein the shared resources overlap at least in part with a frequency range of resources of the PDCCH, or the shared resources include a bandwidth of the PDCCH, or the shared resources have a bandwidth that is same as the bandwidth of the PDCCH”; (see Su ¶ 0308, ¶ 0310).
Regarding claim 9, claim 7 is incorporated as stated above. In addition, the combination of Rico and Su further discloses “wherein at least one of: an indication of the shared resources between the first resource set and the second resource set, an indication that the PDCCH is shared to schedule the first PDSCH transmission and the second PDSCH transmission, or a position of the shared resources, is determined according to:a predefined or a default setting, or an indication in the DCI, a radio resource control (RRC) signaling or a medium access control control element (MAC CE) signaling, from the wireless communication node to the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication device.”; (see Su ¶ 0308; In an example, the first PDCCH corresponds to one DCI, and the DCI includes scheduling information of the first PDSCH and the second PDSCH).
Regarding claim 10, claim 6 is incorporated as stated above. In addition, the combination of Rico and Su further discloses “wherein: the shared resources comprise a first bandwidth, and a bandwidth of the first resource set is no more than the first bandwidth”; (see Su ¶ 0229, ¶ 0308).
Regarding claim 11, claim 6 is incorporated as stated above. In addition, the combination of Rico and Su further discloses “wherein remaining resources of the first resource set are determined by: the shared resources, or the shared resources and the second resource set.”; (see Su ¶ 0418; Salvain discloses after handing off the connection to the third device, stop the first device from communicating with the second device).
Regarding claim 12, claim 6 is incorporated as stated above. In addition, the combination of Rico and Su further discloses “wherein the first resource set and the second resource set have a same transport block size (TBS) or a same number of resource elements (REs)..”; (see Su ¶ 0316).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rico Alvarino et al (US 2022/0046587 A1), hereinafter Rico in view of Mohammed Mikaeil al (US Pub. No. 2024/0215052 A1) hereinafter “Mohammed” and further in view of Su et al (US Pub. No. 2021/0127396 A1) and further in view of Moon et al (US 2020/0162208 A1).
Most of the limitations of claim 13 have been noted in the rejection of claim 6. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 6 above. The combination of Rico and Su does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein:the first resource set is mapped onto Y portions in time domain, where resources in each of the Y portions are allocated: in one slot or in one slot with one repetition, or in multiple slots with one repetition, or in M slots with N repetitions, where M and N are each a positive integer value, and M is greater than or equal to N. However, Moon discloses wherein:the first resource set is mapped onto Y portions in time domain, where resources in each of the Y portions are allocated: in one slot or in one slot with one repetition, or in multiple slots with one repetition, or in M slots with N repetitions, where M and N are each a positive integer value, and M is greater than or equal to N; (See Su ¶ 0165, ¶ 0167). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Rico and Moon before him or her, to modify the invention of Rico to enable the system to map resources to a specific slot. The suggestion for doing so would have been to improve transmitting and receiving a data channel for a service requiring high reliability and low latency (¶ 0002).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 - 17 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 the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
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 KHALED M KASSIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3770. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 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.
. 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.
/KHALED M KASSIM/ supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights