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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3,6,8,9,12,14-16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Khoshkholgh (US 20220322414).
Re claim 1:
Khoshkholgh discloses a user equipment (UE), comprising: a transceiver configured to receive information about transmission of UE initiated reports in a first uplink (UL) (Fig. 15 ref. 1502 has a transceiver and Para.[0267] A gNB may transmit to a wireless device at least one message comprising parameters indicating zero, one or more SR configurations – Examiner Note: SR configuration is “information about transmission of UE initiated reports”); and
a processor operably coupled to the transceiver, the processor configured to determine a two-part UL report, wherein the transceiver is further configured to (Fig. 15 ref. 1502 has a processor and Para.[0319] a wireless device may trigger an SR due to arrival of data (e.g., BSR trigger)):
transmit, based on the information, the first UL including a first part of the two-part UL report (Fig. 25 ref. SR); and
receive a first acknowledgment within a time, T from the transmission of the first UL (Fig. 25 ref. UL Grant and Para.[0269] For example, an SR prohibit timer (e.g., sr_ProhibitTimer) may be used for measuring a window of time for prohibiting the transmission of an SR and monitoring the PDCCH by the wireless device).
Re claim 2:
Khoshkholgh discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the transceiver is further configured to re-transmit the first UL when the first acknowledgment is not received within the time, T (Para.[0270] In an example, the active time of the wireless device may increase based on expiry of the SR prohibit timer, not receiving an UL grant, and starting the SR prohibit timer after the retransmission of the SR).
Re claim 3:
Khoshkholgh discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the first acknowledgment is conveyed in a downlink control information (DCI) format in a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) (Para.[0268] In an example, the wireless device may monitor PDCCH while the SR prohibit timer (e.g., sr_ProhibitTimer) is running in order to detect a DCI indicating uplink grants).
Re claim 6:
Khoshkholgh discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the first UL includes a second part of the two-part UL report (Para.[0210] After determining a PUCCH resource set from a plurality of PUCCH resource sets, the UE may determine a PUCCH resource from the PUCCH resource set for UCI (HARQ-ACK, CSI, and/or SR) transmission).
Re claim 8: Claim 8 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1 from the perspective of the base station.
Re claim 9: Claim 9 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 12: Claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6.
Re claim 14: Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 15: Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 16: Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 19: Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6.
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.
Claim(s) 4,5,10,11,17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshkholgh (US 20220322414) in view of Zhou (US 20200404682).
Re claim 4:
As discussed above, Khoshkholgh meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Khoshkholgh discloses the UE of claim 3, wherein: the DCI format includes scheduling information for transmission of a second UL (Para.[0237] In an example, an uplink scheduling grant DCI may comprise parameters indicating at least one of: identifier of a DCI format; PUSCH resource indication); and
the transceiver is further configured to: transmit, based on the scheduling information, the second UL including a second part of the two-part UL report (Fig.25 ref. PUSCH); and
Khoshkholgh does not explicitly disclose receive a second acknowledgment associated with the second UL.
Zhou discloses receive a second acknowledgment associated with the second UL (Para.[0008] receiving, by the UE, a downlink communication from a base station, the downlink communication including an update to at least one semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) or configured grant (CG) parameter, where the downlink communication indicates whether to use a first action time or a second action time for the update to take effect – Examiner Note: The specification defines “acknowledgement” as “channel/signal allocation/scheduling UL resources for report from UE”).
Khoshkholgh and Zhou are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khoshkholgh to include update a second acknowledgment as taught by Zhou in order to avoid errors or conflicts in communication and improve efficiency (Zhou Para.[0080]).
Re claim 5:
As discussed above, Khoshkholgh meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Khoshkholgh does not explicitly disclose the UE of claim 4, wherein: the transceiver is further configured to receive a time, T2; and the processor is further configured to update a parameter based on the two-part UL report at the time, T2, from the second acknowledgment.
Zhou discloses the UE of claim 4, wherein: the transceiver is further configured to receive a time, T2; and the processor is further configured to update a parameter based on the two-part UL report at the time, T2, from the second acknowledgment (Para.[0008] receiving, by the UE, a downlink communication from a base station, the downlink communication including an update to at least one semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) or configured grant (CG) parameter, where the downlink communication indicates whether to use a first action time or a second action time for the update to take effect).
Khoshkholgh and Zhou are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khoshkholgh to include update a parameter at a time as taught by Zhou in order to avoid errors or conflicts in communication and improve efficiency (Zhou Para.[0080]).
Re claim 10: Claim 10 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 11: Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 5.
Re claim 17: Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 18: Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 5.
Claim(s) 7,13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshkholgh (US 20220322414) in view of Li (US 20180368172).
Re claim 7:
As discussed above, Khoshkholgh meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Khoshkholgh does not explicitly disclose the UE of claim 1, wherein: the transceiver is further configured to receive a time, T2; and the processor is further configured to update a parameter based on the two-part UL report at the time, T2, from the first acknowledgment.
Li discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein: the transceiver is further configured to receive a time, T2; and the processor is further configured to update a parameter based on the two-part UL report at the time, T2, from the first acknowledgment (Para.[0101] In some aspects, the acknowledgement message may include an identifier of a time at which the uplink grant is to be provided. For example, BS 110 may transmit an acknowledgement message indicating a particular mini-slot of a plurality of mini-slots at which BS 110 is to transmit the uplink grant, and UE 120 may receive the uplink grant at the particular mini-slot based at least in part on BS 110 transmitting the uplink grant at the particular mini-slot).
Khoshkholgh and Li are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khoshkholgh to include update a parameter at a time as taught by Li in order to reduce excessive network traffic (Li Para.[0101]).
Re claim 13: Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7.
Re claim 20: Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bai (US 20220124739) shows updating a TCI state.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD SAJID ADHAMI whose telephone number is (571)272-8615. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571) 272-8586. 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.
/MOHAMMAD S ADHAMI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471