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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Abotabl et al. US 20240073872.
Regarding claim 1, A method performed by a terminal in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: monitoring for at least one of a first condition or a second condition, wherein the first condition includes a channel state information (CSI)-reference signal (RS) or a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) overlapping with an uplink subband in a subband full-duplex operation and becoming non-contiguous in a frequency domain and wherein the second condition includes different network antenna patterns or power patterns being used in a network energy saving operation for transmission of the CSI-RS (an SBFD slot may be associated with a non-overlapping uplink/downlink sub-band, within a component carrier bandwidth, an uplink resource may be in between, in a frequency domain, a first downlink resource and a second downlink resource, the first downlink resource, the second downlink resource, and the uplink resource may all be associated with the same time, para. 0078, Figure 5, element 510), and relaxing processing requirements related to at least one of a processing timeline or occupied computational resources, in response to the first condition or the second condition occurring (UE complexity may be reduced with a relaxed UE processing timeline for a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH), a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), and/or channel state information (CSI), para. 0081).
Claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5-7, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abotabl in view of Elshafie et al. US 20240322966 in view of Lei et al. US 20230319898.
Regarding claim 5, The method of claim 1, Abotabl does not disclose wherein in response to the first condition occurring, for a periodic or semi-periodic CSI report, relaxing the processing requirements comprises increasing a CSI reference resource by Δ, where Δ indicates an additional processing period. Elshafie discloses a UE may be configured to transmit a periodic CSI, an aperiodic CSI and/or a semi-persistent CSI, the base station may schedule the UE to provide CSI reports to the base station periodically, semi-persistently, or aperiodically, para. 0028. Elshafie discloses if the particular CSI report trigger event is detected, then the UE may be scheduled to transmit the A-CSI report based on the report configuration ID corresponding to the CSI-RS resources that are received first in time, which may afford the UE a more relaxed timeline to compute channel state information feedback, para. 0100. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Abotabl to include Elshafie’s aperiodic CSI reporting and relaxed timeline for the UE to send feedback. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for prioritize and multiplex CSI reporting to increase flexibility in CSI reporting and reduce delay in adapting to changing channel conditions, when the base station schedules the UE to transmit multiple CSI reports on a same uplink resource, the UE may multiplex the multiple CSI reports and/or prioritize between a DL DCI implicitly-triggered A-CSI, periodic/aperiodic/semi-persistent CSI-RS resources, or a PDSCH-based CSI report, para. 0033.
Abotabl and Elshafie do not disclose comprises increasing a CSI reference resource by Δ, where Δ indicates an additional processing period. Lei discloses UEs with reduced capabilities may need a relaxed processing timeline relative to standard UEs, the relaxed processing timeline may provide UEs with reduced capabilities an appropriate amount of time (e.g., during a random access procedure) to decode messages from a base station (BS) and/or to prepare uplink messages, para. 0007. Lei discloses the UE may trigger a timeline relaxation by including a request for a timeline relaxation because the base station may not be aware that the UE is a low capability UE in need of a relaxed processing timeline, para. 0122. Lei discloses a first period may begin when the UE has received the message and may be defined by the expression K.sub.2+Δ, where the result of the expression K.sub.2+Δ represents a number of slots (referred to as a slot offset), one or more new look lookup tables (LUTs) for setting new values of K.sub.2 and one or more new LUTs for setting new values for delta (Δ) may be introduced to support reduced UE capabilities, para. 0124. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Abotabl and Elshafie to include Lei’s relaxed processing timeline. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to mitigate uplink (UL) transmissions from UEs with reduced capabilities that are compromised which may significantly impair the performance and/or functionality of the UEs with reduced capabilities, para. 0007.
Regarding 6. The method of claim 5, Abotabl does not disclose wherein Δ is determined based on subcarrier spacing of the CSI-RS. Elshafie discloses a UE may be configured to transmit a periodic CSI, an aperiodic CSI and/or a semi-persistent CSI, the base station may schedule the UE to provide CSI reports to the base station periodically, semi-persistently, or aperiodically, para. 0028. Elshafie discloses the subcarrier spacing and symbol length/duration are a function of the numerology. The subcarrier spacing may be equal to 2.sup.μ*15 kHz, where u is the numerology 0 to 5, the numerology μ=0 has a subcarrier spacing of 15 kHz and the numerology μ=5 has a subcarrier spacing of 480 kHz, para. 0053. Elshafie discloses if the particular CSI report trigger event is detected, then the UE may be scheduled to transmit the A-CSI report based on the report configuration ID corresponding to the CSI-RS resources that are received first in time, which may afford the UE a more relaxed timeline to compute channel state information feedback, para. 0100. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Abotabl to include Elshafie’s aperiodic CSI reporting and relaxed timeline for the UE to send feedback. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for prioritize and multiplex CSI reporting to increase flexibility in CSI reporting and reduce delay in adapting to changing channel conditions, when the base station schedules the UE to transmit multiple CSI reports on a same uplink resource, the UE may multiplex the multiple CSI reports and/or prioritize between a DL DCI implicitly-triggered A-CSI, periodic/aperiodic/semi-persistent CSI-RS resources, or a PDSCH-based CSI report, para. 0033.
Abotabl and Elshafie do not disclose comprises increasing a CSI reference resource by Δ, where Δ indicates an additional processing period. Lei discloses UEs with reduced capabilities may need a relaxed processing timeline relative to standard UEs, the relaxed processing timeline may provide UEs with reduced capabilities an appropriate amount of time (e.g., during a random access procedure) to decode messages from a base station (BS) and/or to prepare uplink messages, para. 0007. Lei discloses the UE may trigger a timeline relaxation by including a request for a timeline relaxation because the base station may not be aware that the UE is a low capability UE in need of a relaxed processing timeline, para. 0122. Lei discloses a first period may begin when the UE has received the message and may be defined by the expression K.sub.2+Δ, where the result of the expression K.sub.2+Δ represents a number of slots (referred to as a slot offset), one or more new look lookup tables (LUTs) for setting new values of K.sub.2 and one or more new LUTs for setting new values for delta (Δ) may be introduced to support reduced UE capabilities, para. 0124. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Abotabl and Elshafie to include Lei’s relaxed processing timeline. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to mitigate uplink (UL) transmissions from UEs with reduced capabilities that are compromised which may significantly impair the performance and/or functionality of the UEs with reduced capabilities, para. 0007.
Regarding claim 7, The method of claim 6, Abotabl and Elshafie does not disclose wherein a value of Δ is predefined or transmitted, to a base station, by the terminal, via capability signaling. Lei discloses the UE may trigger a timeline relaxation by including a request for a timeline relaxation because the base station may not be aware that the UE is a low capability UE in need of a relaxed processing timeline, para. 0122. Lei discloses a first period may begin when the UE has received the message and may be defined by the expression K.sub.2+Δ, where the result of the expression K.sub.2+Δ represents a number of slots (referred to as a slot offset), one or more new look lookup tables (LUTs) for setting new values of K.sub.2 and one or more new LUTs for setting new values for delta (Δ) may be introduced to support reduced UE capabilities, para. 0124, 0167. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Abotabl and Elshafie reporting and relaxed processing according to subcarrier spacing to include Lei’s relaxed processing timeline. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to mitigate uplink (UL) transmissions from UEs with reduced capabilities that are compromised which may significantly impair the performance and/or functionality of the UEs with reduced capabilities, para. 0007.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 8, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abotabl in view of Raghavan et al. US 20220330066.
Regarding claim 8, The method of claim 1, Abotabl does not disclose wherein in response to the first condition occurring, relaxing the processing requirements comprises relaxing the processing timeline of the PDSCH by adding d3 to a contiguous PDSCH processing timeline, where d3 indicates an additional processing period. Raghavan discloses the subsequently used measurement period T.sub.k+1 for L1-RSRP on SSB or CSI-RS from RRH.sub.k+1 is relaxed by factor of K, para. 0060. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Abotabl to include Raghavan’s relaxed measurement period. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for timing requirements for performing such measurements that can be dynamically changed depending on, at least, a measurement on one of the reference signal or the synchronization signal, Abstract, para. 0012.
Claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 9-12, 14-15, 19-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE JAGANNATHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3163. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Marcus Smith can be reached at 571-270-1096. 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.
/MELANIE JAGANNATHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468