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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/17/2025 has been entered.
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, 13, 22, and 26, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (WO 2024/097306 A1) in view of Xu et al. (CN 118076183 A)
Regarding claims 1, 13, 22, and 26, Tsai discloses:
an apparatus (fig.15 element 1502 the wireless device) for wireless communication (fig.15 depicts wireless communications), the apparatus comprising:
at least one processor (fig.15 depicts a processor); and
a memory (fig.15 depicts a memory) coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor (fig.15 depicts the memory and processor coupled together) is configured to:
perform a method of wireless communication (fig.1a depicts a wireless communications network) performed by a user equipment (UE) (fig.1a depicts a wireless device element 106), the method comprising:
detecting, via an application executed at the UE, an end of burst (EOB) indication (fig.27 depicts a uplink End of Burst (EOB) indication which is an indication from the application layer of the UE. The UL EoB indication indicates an end of uplink data traffic from an application on the UE, par.[0307 – 0308]), the EOB indication indicating an end of a communicated data frame (fig.27 and par.[0307] wherein the EoB indicates an end of a data frame in the uplink direction); and
in response to detecting the EOB indication, transitioning from an active state at the UE to a low energy state at the UE during a next phase of discontinuous communication (par.[0307] describes the UE using the EoB to transition from a DRX active state to a DRX inactive state, par.[0318]).
While the disclosure of Tsai teaches a higher-layer generating an End-of-Burst indication, it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the application generates the EOB indication.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Xu teaches:
wherein the application generates the EOB indication (par.[0022] describes a higher level protocol layer such as the PDCP layer or an Application Layer generating an end indication which is sent to the MAC layer, which is then sent to the network which results in the UE entering a low power state).
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 disclosure of Tsai for transmitting a uplink end of burst indication as discussed, with the disclosure of Xu for signaling by the application layer an end of burst. The motivation/suggestion would have been to reduce power consumption at the UE when no uplink data needs to be sent.
Claim(s) 1-5,13, 22, and 26, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (WO 2024/097306 A1) in view of Manepalli et al. (US 2013/0163493 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 13, 22, and 26, Tsai discloses:
an apparatus (fig.15 element 1502 the wireless device) for wireless communication (fig.15 depicts wireless communications), the apparatus comprising:
at least one processor (fig.15 depicts a processor); and
a memory (fig.15 depicts a memory) coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor (fig.15 depicts the memory and processor coupled together) is configured to:
perform a method of wireless communication (fig.1a depicts a wireless communications network) performed by a user equipment (UE) (fig.1a depicts a wireless device element 106), the method comprising:
detecting, via an application executed at the UE, an end of burst (EOB) indication (fig.27 depicts a uplink End of Burst (EOB) indication which is an indication from the application layer of the UE. The UL EoB indication indicates an end of uplink data traffic from an application on the UE, par.[0307 – 0308]), the EOB indication indicating an end of a communicated data frame (fig.27 and par.[0307] wherein the EoB indicates an end of a data frame in the uplink direction); and
in response to detecting the EOB indication, transitioning from an active state at the UE to a low energy state at the UE during a next phase of discontinuous communication (par.[0307] describes the UE using the EoB to transition from a DRX active state to a DRX inactive state, par.[0318]).
While the disclosure of Tsai teaches a higher-layer generating an End-of-Burst indication, it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the application generates the EOB indication.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Manepalli teaches:
wherein the application generates the EOB indication (fig.3 and par.[0035] which recites, in part, “When a UE is in the RRC connected mode it continues to transfer data or perform any other data activity until the data activity is over. In an embodiment of the present invention, the data activity may be, for example, sync, application usage, and so on. Once the data activity process is over and there is no more data for transfer, the UE sends an indication to the network regarding the status, in step 301……. the applications provides a request to the MAC entity in the LTE UE to trigger the sending of a BSR MAC CE to the network.” That is the central coordinator represents the applications and par.[0042] “The UE 103a runs applications that can determine the data transmission activity, and all such applications are coordinated internally in the LTE UE 103a. The LTE UE 103a can detect and determine that all the applications are done with the active data transmission, can trigger an indication to the network, and can request the network to reduce battery consumption.” Interpreted as the Application(s) generate the EoB indication as the central controller has knowledge of application transmission need, and when an application no longer needs to transmit the central controller would identify that, and forward to a layer-2 MAC Layer the indication which causes the MAC-Layer to send the EoB to the network.).
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 disclosure of Tsai for transmitting a uplink end of burst indication as discussed, with the disclosure of Manepalli for signaling by the application layer an end of burst. The motivation/suggestion would have been to reduce power consumption at the UE when no uplink data needs to be sent.
Claim(s) 1-5,13, 22, and 26, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (WO 2024/097306 A1) in view of Goel et al. (US 2024/0188073 A1)
Regarding claims 1, 13, 22, and 26, Tsai discloses:
an apparatus (fig.15 element 1502 the wireless device) for wireless communication (fig.15 depicts wireless communications), the apparatus comprising:
at least one processor (fig.15 depicts a processor); and
a memory (fig.15 depicts a memory) coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor (fig.15 depicts the memory and processor coupled together) is configured to:
perform a method of wireless communication (fig.1a depicts a wireless communications network) performed by a user equipment (UE) (fig.1a depicts a wireless device element 106), the method comprising:
detecting, via an application executed at the UE, an end of burst (EOB) indication (fig.27 depicts a uplink End of Burst (EOB) indication which is an indication from the application layer of the UE. The UL EoB indication indicates an end of uplink data traffic from an application on the UE, par.[0307 – 0308]), the EOB indication indicating an end of a communicated data frame (fig.27 and par.[0307] wherein the EoB indicates an end of a data frame in the uplink direction); and
in response to detecting the EOB indication, transitioning from an active state at the UE to a low energy state at the UE during a next phase of discontinuous communication (par.[0307] describes the UE using the EoB to transition from a DRX active state to a DRX inactive state, par.[0318]).
While the disclosure of Tsai teaches a higher-layer generating an End-of-Burst indication, it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the application generates the EOB indication.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Goel teaches:
wherein the application generates the EOB indication (Fig.1 depicts the application circuitry forwarding stream information to the baseband processing circuitry which causes the baseband circuitry of the UE to forward a BSR. The BSR can comprise an End of Burst Indication as discussed in par.[0091] “In some implementations, baseband processor 320 may also, or alternatively, determine that the packet streams are the last packet streams to be received from application 310. In such a scenario, baseband processor 320 may generate a padding BSR configured to indicate to base station 222 that no more resource allocations are needed or required (block 750). For instance, if base station 222 were to continue allocating resources to UE 210, base station 222 would discontinue doing so upon reception of the padding BSR.”, Also par.[0142] describes the UE entering into inactive DRX state based on the lack of transmissions).
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 disclosure of Tsai for transmitting a uplink end of burst indication as discussed, with the disclosure of Goel for signaling by the application layer an end of burst. The motivation/suggestion would have been to reduce power consumption at the UE when no uplink data needs to be sent.
Regarding claim 2, Tsai discloses:
wherein:
data associated with the communicated data frame includes one or more bursts of video data packets (par.[0268] describes a data burst, which includes a frame or video slice), and
transitioning from the active state to the low energy state (par.[0318] which describes when the UE transmits the UL-EOBI performing a switch from a DRX active state to a DRX inactive state), but does not disclose:
state transition includes performing bandwidth part (BWP) switching from a first BWP to a second BWP (par.[0114] which describes a BWP switching procedure from a first BWP to a second BWP), and wherein a first size of the first BWP is greater than a second size of the second BWP (par.[0116] which recites, in part, “a BWP 902 with a bandwidth of 40 MHz and a subcarrier spacing of 15 kHz; a BWP 904 with a bandwidth of 10 MHz and a subcarrier spacing of 15 kHz; and a BWP 906 with a bandwidth of 20 MHz and a subcarrier spacing of 60 kHz. The BWP 902 may be an initial active BWP, and the BWP 904 may be a default BWP.”.).
Regarding claim 3, Tsai discloses:wherein detecting the EOB indication includes:
receiving, from the application executed at the UE, an uplink (UL) EOB indication (fig.27 depicts a uplink End of Burst (EOB) indication which is an indication from the application layer of the UE. The UL EoB indication indicates an end of uplink data traffic from an application on the UE, par.[0307 – 0308]) or a zero buffer indication (claim 1: wireless device transmits an end indication of the set of multiple application layer PDUs, based on the determination the UE can send a BSR with a buffer size field,. Par.[0313] describes setting the BSR to zero).
Regarding claim 4, Tsai discloses:
receiving a downlink (DL) EOB indication from a network entity (fig.21 depicts an EoBI sent from the gNodeB to the wireless terminal).
Regarding claim 5, Tsai discloses:
wherein performing the BWP switching from the first BWP to the second BWP includes: switching to a default BWP as the second BWP; or
selecting, based on a BWP size, the second BWP from among a plurality of BWPs (par.[0116] which recites, in part, “par.[0116] which recites, in part, “a BWP 902 with a bandwidth of 40 MHz and a subcarrier spacing of 15 kHz; a BWP 904 with a bandwidth of 10 MHz and a subcarrier spacing of 15 kHz; and a BWP 906 with a bandwidth of 20 MHz and a subcarrier spacing of 60 kHz. The BWP 902 may be an initial active BWP, and the BWP 904 may be a default BWP.”.).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai and Goel as applied to independent claims 1, 13, 22, and 26, along with dependent claim 2, in view of Awad et al. (US 2024/0008015 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Tsai and Goel discloses:
wherein detecting the EOB indication includes detecting the EOB indication during a discontinuous communication active phase of the UE (par.[0307] describes the UE using the EoB to transition from a DRX active state to a DRX inactive state, par.[0318]), the method further comprising:
but they do not disclose:
during the next phase of discontinuous communication, transmitting data to a network entity via the second BWP.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Awad teaches:
during the next phase of discontinuous communication, transmitting data to a network entity via the second BWP (par.[0107] describes the UE waking up in on periods of the DRX cycle in order to receive or transmit PDCCH/PDSCH/PUSCH. Par.[0111] describes the UE receiving PDCCH on the narrowband which indicates that the UE should transmit on the wideband or perform transmission on the narrowband. Thus it is shown that a UE may transmit a PUSCH on the narrowband in one or more DRX periods).
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 Tsai and Goel EoBI with the disclosure of Awad for transmitting on a narrowband. The motivation/suggestion would have been to reduce UE power consumption during transmission by using a narrowband over a wider band (Awad: par.[0036]).
Claim(s) 7, 9, 12, and 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai and Goel as applied to independent claims 1, 13, 22, and 26, along with dependent claim 2, in view of Kim et al. (US 2022/0052821 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Tsai and Goel teaches:
wherein performing the BWP switching from the first BWP to the second BWP (see rejection of claims above in claim 2 with regard to Tsai),
They may not disclose:
transitioning from the first BWP to the second BWP based on expiration of a BWP switching delay period.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Kim teaches:
transitioning from the first BWP to the second BWP based on expiration of a BWP switching delay period (fig.4 element and par.[0082] which recites, in part, “A second PDCCH 430 may be transmitted using the wideband BWP 405, and may include a BWP change indication to trigger the UE to switch to the narrowband BWP 410 for the associated second PDSCH 440. The UE may have a BWP switching delay 435 time period, and thus the transmission of the second PDSCH 440 using such techniques does not begin until after the BWP switching delay 435.”).
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 Tsai and Goel for EoBI indication, with the disclosure of Kim for providing a delay to BWP switching. The motivation/suggestion would have been the BWP switching delay provides a mechanism for a UE to re-tune to the new BWP when switching occurs.
Regarding claim 9, the disclosure of Kim teaches:
wherein the second BWP is operable to transmit any one or more of (par.[0078] describes the narrowband BWP):
a mobility measurement signal, a control signal, a data signal, a response to a wakeup signal (WUS) received from a network entity, a control wakeup signal (C-WUS) configured to place the network entity into an active state, and a scheduling request of one or more logical channel groups (LCGs) (par.[0078] which recites, in part, “Based on the end of burst indicator, the UE 115-a may transition to the narrowband BWP upon completion of the last PDSCH communication. In some cases, the UE 115-a may switch to the narrowband BWP based on a timing between the last PDSCH communication of the wideband BWP burst 215 and the feedback 225 communication, based on a timing between the last PDSCH communication of the of the wideband BWP burst 215 and a retransmission of a portion of the communication (e.g., based on a NACK provided with the feedback 225), or any combinations thereof.” That is, the UE may switch to the second BWP in order to transmit control information, fig.7 element 750).
Regarding claim 12, Kim discloses:
wherein performing the BWP switching from the first BWP to the second BWP includes reducing a quantity of resource blocks (RBs) in the first BWP to generate the second BWP, removing interlaced RBs from the first BWP to generate the second BWP, or a combination thereof (fig.7 depicts a BWP switch from a wideband BWP to a narrowband BWP which would result in a reduced number of resource blocks in order to arrive at a narrowed smaller in frequency BWP. Additionally, the reduction contiguous resources (e.g. reducing RB) is also used to configure a narrowband1 see fig.7 wherein the WBWP is modifi9d by reducing BW e.g. the RB or interlaced RB to configure the NBWP).
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses:
to transition from the active state to the low energy state, the at least one processor is configured to perform bandwidth part (BWP) switching from a first BWP to a second BWP, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
receive a configuration message from a base station (par.[0005 and 0075 – 0076] which discloses receiving a DCI indicating BWP switching from a first BWP to a second BWP).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai and Goel in view of Kim as applied to independent claims 7, in view of Moon et al. (US 2020/0344034 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Tsai, Goel, and Kim discloses:
wherein performing the BWP switching from the first BWP to the second BWP includes:
transitioning from the first BWP to the second BWP based on expiration of a modified BWP switching delay period (fig.4 describes a BWP switching delay and describes a delay with an offset), and wherein:
but does not disclose:
the modified BWP switching delay period includes a BWP switching delay period and an offset value added to the BWP switching delay period, and the offset value is specified in a radio resource control (RRC) message, a medium access control (MAC)-control element (CE), or a downlink control information (DCI).
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Moon teaches:
but does not disclose:
the modified BWP switching delay period includes a BWP switching delay period (par.[0199] which recites, that the BWP switching comprises a PDCCH delay time T1, and is included as a delay to the BWP switching) and an offset value added to the BWP switching delay period (par.[0199 – 0200] which describes the delay plus the driving time added to the delay, and par.[0207] describes an offset O3 which is signaled to the UE), and the offset value is specified in a radio resource control (RRC) message, a medium access control (MAC)-control element (CE), or a downlink control information (DCI) (par.[0208] describes the UE receiving RRC or MAC, or DCI with offset).
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 Tsai, Goel, and Kim for BWP switching, with the disclosure of the delay for BWP switching as discussed in Moon. The motivation/suggestion would have been to synchronize the UE and network such that the network and/or UE may transition to the new BWP in a time such that successful transmission and reception can occur.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai and Goel as applied to independent claims 1, 13, 22, and 26, along with dependent claim 2, in view of Deogun et al. (US 2021/0051631 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the disclosure of Tsai and Goel teaches:
further comprising:
receiving, at the UE, an indication from a network entity, the indication indicating to perform BWP switching from the first BWP to the second BWP (fig.9 depicts BWP switching, par.[0116]), wherein:
the indication is in addition to the EOB indication (fig.21 teaches an EOBI from the gNB and fig.27 teaches an UL EOBI from the app layer of the UE),
However, the disclosure of Tsai does not teach:
the indication is received after occurrence of a threshold number of physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) monitoring occasions or within a particular time period, at least a portion of the particular time period corresponds to a BWP switching delay, and the BWP switching from the first BWP to the second BWP is performed in response to receiving the indication after the occurrence of the threshold number of PDCCH monitoring occasions or within the particular time period.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Deogun teaches:
the indication is received after occurrence of a threshold number of physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) monitoring occasions (fig.3 element 306 and par.[0069 – 0071]) or within a particular time period (fig.3 element 352), at least a portion of the particular time period corresponds to a BWP switching delay (fig.3 and par.[0074]), and the BWP switching from the first BWP to the second BWP is performed in response to receiving the indication after the occurrence of the threshold number of PDCCH monitoring occasions or within the particular time period (fig.3 after both the threshold amount of PDCCH occasions 306b and the command is received in time period 352 at 306d).
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 Tsai and Goel for BWP switching with the disclosure of Deogun for BWP switching. The motivation/suggestion would have been to reduce power consumption during the switching of BWP.
Regarding claim 11, Tsai discloses:
receiving downlink control information (DCI) that includes the indication, wherein the DCI is a non-scheduling DCI (fig.22 teaches the Non-Scheduling DCI with the EOBI included therein).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai and Goel as applied to independent claims 1, 13, 22, and 26, along with dependent claim 2, in view of Ang et al. (US 2019/0124558 A1).
Regarding claim 15, the disclosure of Tsai and Goel teaches at least configuring the UE with a plurality of BWP configurations as discussed above, but does not disclose:
wherein the configuration message includes one or more parameters associated with performing the BWP switching from the first BWP to the second BWP, wherein the configuration message is received during a radio resource control (RRC) procedure, and wherein the one or more parameters indicate:
a size of the second BWP, a first time period that transpires from communicating via the first BWP to communicating via the second BWP, a duration of a second time period to communicate via the second BWP,or a combination thereof.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Ang teaches:
wherein the configuration message includes one or more parameters associated with performing the BWP switching from the first BWP to the second BWP, wherein the configuration message is received during a radio resource control (RRC) procedure, and wherein the one or more parameters indicate (par.[0058] describes a plurality of BWP configurations for uplink and/or downlink):
a size of the second BWP, a first time period that transpires from communicating via the first BWP to communicating via the second BWP, a duration of a second time period to communicate via the second BWP,or a combination thereof (par.[0101] which describes the configuration sent to the UE by the network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Tsai and Goel with the disclosure of Ang. The motivation/suggestion would have been to dynamically switch between BWPs without significant signaling overhead.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai and Goel as applied to independent claims 1, 13, 22, and 26, along with dependent claim 2, in view of Ang et al. (US 2019/0124558 A1) as applied to claim 15, in view of Kim et al. (US 2022/0052821 A1). as applied to claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Tsai, Goel, and Ang disclose claim 15, but does not disclose:
wherein the first time period includes a BWP switching delay period, a modified BWP switching delay period, a threshold number of physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) monitoring occasions, or a combination thereof.
In an analogous art Kim discloses:
wherein the first time period includes a BWP switching delay period, a modified BWP switching delay period, a threshold number of physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) monitoring occasions, or a combination thereof (fig.4 depicts a BWP switching delay which causes a delay before the switching of the BWP).
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 Tsai, Goel and Ang, with the disclosure of Kim. The motivation/suggestion would have been that the above means provides an opportunity for retuning at the UE.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai, Goel, and Kim as applied to independent claims 14, in view of Ang, and further in view of Islam et al. (US 2022/0190886 A1).
Regarding claim 17, the disclosure of Tsai, Goel, and Kim teach a BWP configuration from the network, but does not disclose:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: send, to a network entity, a BWP switching preference indication, the BWP switching preference indication indicating a BWP switching preference, an expected occurrence time of the next phase of discontinuous communication, or a combination thereof.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Islam teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
send, to a network entity, a BWP switching preference indication, the BWP switching preference indication indicating a BWP switching preference, an expected occurrence time of the next phase of discontinuous communication, or a combination thereof (par.[0044] which describes the UE assistance information based on the configuration information wherein the UE sends the assistance information to indicate a preferred BWP).
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 Tsai, Goel, and Kim, along with the disclosure of Islam for forwarding a preferred BWP. The motivation/suggestion would have been to indicate a preferred BWP to the network which would suit the UE’s needs at the time to assist the network with BWP switching.
Regarding claim 18, Islam discloses:
wherein the BWP switching preference includes: an identification of the second BWP, a size of the second BWP, a time period during which to communicate via the second BWP, or a combination thereof (par.[0044] describes an explicit indication as a preference of BWP to the network to assist with BWP switching).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai and Goel as applied to independent claims 1, 13, 22, and 26, along with dependent claim 2, in view of Thyagarajan et al. (US 2022/0386373 A1).
Regarding claim 19, the disclosure of Tsai and Goel teaches BWP switching, but does not disclose:
wherein, to transition from the active state to the low energy state, the at least one processor is configured to switch from communicating according to a first search space set group (SSSG) to communicating according to a second SSSG.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Thyagarajan discloses:
wherein, to transition from the active state to the low energy state, the at least one processor is configured to switch from communicating according to a first search space set group (SSSG) to communicating according to a second SSSG (par.[0036] describes switching between SSSG for power savings, par.[0035] describes that the different SSSG have different amount of monitoring occasions. Thus, with reduced amount of monitoring occasions the UE may save power).
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 Tsai and Goel for BWP switching for lower power with the disclosure of Thyagarajan for switching SSSG for power savings. The motivation/suggestion would have been with a SSSG with a reduced amount of PDCCH occasions on a BWP would allow the UE to reduce power by not monitoring as many PDCCH occasions.
Regarding claim 20, Thyagarajan discloses:
wherein the first SSSG is associated with a first quantity of physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) monitoring occasions, and wherein the second SSSG is associated with a second quantity of PDCCH monitoring occasions that is less than the first quantity (par.[0008] which describes the different SSSG having different amounts of PDCCH monitoring occasions).
Claim(s) 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai and Goel as applied to independent claims 1, 13, 22, and 26, along with dependent claim 2, in view of Hosseini et al. (US 2020/0221431 A1).
Regarding claim 19, the disclosure of Tsai and Goel teaches BWP switching, but does not disclose:
wherein, to transition from the active state to the low energy state, the at least one processor is configured to switch from communicating according to a first search space set group (SSSG) to communicating according to a second SSSG.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Hosseini discloses:
wherein, to transition from the active state to the low energy state, the at least one processor is configured to switch from communicating according to a first search space set group (SSSG) to communicating according to a second SSSG (par.[0068] describes a UE reducing power, par.[0103], par.[0005] describes switching search space sets).
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 Tsai and Goel for BWP switching for lower power with the disclosure of Thyagarajan for switching SSSG for power savings. The motivation/suggestion would have been with a SSSG with a reduced amount of PDCCH occasions on a BWP would allow the UE to reduce power by not monitoring as many PDCCH occasions.
Regarding claim 20, Hosseini discloses:
wherein the first SSSG is associated with a first quantity of physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) monitoring occasions, and wherein the second SSSG is associated with a second quantity of PDCCH monitoring occasions that is less than the first quantity (par.[0105] which describes the different SSS having different amounts of PDCCH monitoring occasions).
Regarding claim 21, the disclosure of Hosseini teaches:
wherein the first SSSG and the second SSSG are indicated by downlink control information (DCI), a medium access control (MAC)-control element (CE), or a radio resource control (RRC) message (fig.2 depicts a base station transmitting DCI comprising first and second search spaces to the UE), and
wherein, to switch from the first SSSG to the second SSSG, the at least one processor is configured to:
transition from the first SSSG to the second SSSG based on expiration of a particular time period corresponding to a quantity of physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) monitoring occasions associated with the first SSSG, wherein the particular time period is indicated by another DCI, another MAC-CE, or another RRC message (par.[0057] wherein the UE is configured to monitor a first search space set for low-density and then periodically based on a signal from the base station monitor high density search space sets).
Claim(s) 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai and Goel as applied to independent claims 1, 13, 22, and 26, in view of Ang et al. (US 2019/0124558 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Tsai and Goel discloses:
wherein detecting the EOB indication includes receiving an uplink (UL) EOB indication from an application executed at the UE (fig.27 and the associated disclosure teach the UL EOB indication), but does not disclose:
refraining from decoding an UL grant when in the low energy state
The Office notes that the disclosure of Ang, which is an analogous art, discloses:
refraining from decoding an UL grant when in the low energy state (par.[0065] describes a dormant state the active BWP is a zero BWP. The UE cannot decode an UL grant on the zero BWP because the BWP has little to no bandwidth).
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 Tsai and Goel for BWP switching with the disclosure of Ang for activating a zero BWP to reduce power consumption. The motivation/suggestion would have been to reduce the power consumption at the UE.
Regarding claim 24, Ang discloses:
wherein refraining from decoding the UL grant includes refraining from decoding the UL grant during a particular time period that corresponds to occurrence of a threshold number of physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) monitoring occasions, and wherein the particular time period is indicated by a radio resource control (RRC) message, a medium access control (MAC)-control element (CE), or a downlink control information (DCI) (par.[0051] describes a timer for controlling switching between active and deactivated states, par.[0064 - 0066] and [0005]).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai, Goel, and Ang as applied to independent claims 23-24, in view of Hosseini et al. (US 2020/0221431 A1).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Tsai, Goel, and in particular Ang teaches waiting a period of time (e.g. a PDCCH monitoring occasions as discussed above), but does not disclose:
wherein the threshold number of PDCCH monitoring occasions is based on a search space set group (SSSG).
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Hosseini discloses:
wherein the threshold number of PDCCH monitoring occasions is based on a search space set group (SSSG) (par.[0057] wherein the UE is configured to monitor a first search space set for low-density and then periodically based on a signal from the base station monitor high density search space sets. That is a search space set comprises a number of PDCCH candidates that the UE would review, when the network signals the switch based on the amount of occasions in the set).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Tsai, Goel, and Ang for BWP switching with power savings of Hosseini which describe SSSG switching. The motivation/suggestion would have been to reduce the power consumption at the UE.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27-30 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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,13, 22, and 26, along with each of their dependent claims 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tarimala et al. (WO 2021/217042 A1) “Release Assistance During Early Data Transmission”
Goel et al. (US 2024/0188073 A1) “Systems, Methods, and Devices for Application Data Prebooking”
Ghelicihi et al. (US 2021/0368535 A1) “Techniques for Shared Channel Backoff Procedures in Wireless Communications Systems”, par.[0065]
He et al. (US 2023/0379908 A1) “Discontinuous Reception Enhancements for Reduced Physical Downlink Control Channel Monitoring and Jitter Handling”
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