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 .
2. The following is a non-final Office action in response to Applicant submission received on 02/01/2024.
3. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Foreign Priority
4. No foreign priority claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Oath/Declaration
5. The applicant's oath/declaration filed on 02/01/2024 has been reviewed by the examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Drawings
6. The applicant’s drawings submitted on 02/01/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
7. The information disclosure statement submitted by Applicant is in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NOGAMI et al. (US 20240251422 A1) in view of OUCHI et al. (US 20230232406 A1).
Regarding claim 1, NOGAMI discloses a user equipment (UE) (FIG. 6: terminal device 1) comprising: a transceiver (FIG. 6: Wireless transmission/reception unit 10) configured to receive: first information by higher layers (FIG. 6: Higher-layer processing unit 16) indicating whether transform precoding is enabled or disabled (para. [0024]: the first information field indicating the transform precoder as disabled), second information by higher layers indicating a presence of a transform precoder indication (TPI) field in a downlink control information (DCI) format (para. [0318]: The RRC parameter dynamicSwitchingTransformPrecoder may indicate that the ‘transform precoding indicator’ field is included in the DCI format), third information by higher layers for a configuration related to a resource allocation associated with transmissions of physical uplink shared channels (PUSCHs) with transform precoding disabled (para. 331: For PUSCH transmission with a configured grant, if the UE is configured with the RRC parameter transformPrecoder in configuredGrantConfig, the UE may, for this PUSCH transmission, consider the transform precoding disabled according to this parameter), and a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) providing the DCI format that schedules a transmission of a PUSCH (para. 148, 309: if the DCI with the scheduling grant was received with DCI format, the UE may, for this PUSCH transmission, consider the transform precoding either enabled or disabled according to the RRC parameter msg3-transformPrecoder), wherein, when the second information indicates that the TPI field is present (para. [0369]: second information indicates the presence of a transform decoder), the DCI format includes the TPI field (para. [0313][0318]: the ‘transform precoding indicator’ field (also referred to as transform precoding field or transform precoder field) is included in the DCI format).
NOGAMI teaches that when transform precoding indicator field value indicates that the transform precoder does not apply, thus to follow the RRC configuration about the transform precoder, and when transform precoding indiator field value indicates that the transform precoder applies, thus not to follow the RRC configuration about the transform precoder to the PUSCH (para. [0337]). Further, Ouchi disclose a processor operably coupled to the transceiver, the processor configured to determine: whether the transform precoding is enabled or disabled based on the TPI field the configuration is not used when transform precoding is enabled, wherein the transceiver is further configured to transmit the PUSCH: with transform precoding and without the configuration, when transform precoding is enabled, OR without transform precoding and with the configuration, when transform precoding is disabled.
In the same field of endeavor, OUCHI teaches a processor (FIG. 6: processing unit 16) operably coupled to the transceiver (FIG. 6: wireless transmission/reception 10), the processor configured to determine: whether the transform precoding is enabled or disabled based on the TPI field (OUCHI, para. [0565]: the UE shall, for this PUSCH transmission, consider the transform precoding either enabled or disabled according to the DCI ‘transform precoding indicator’ field), that the configuration is used when transform precoding is disabled (para. [0038]: If the transformPrecoder is absent/not configured, the UE applies the value of the msg3-transformPrecoder to the transform precoder for the PUSCH), that the configuration is not used when transform precoding is enabled (OUCHI, para. [0039]: If the msg3-transformPrecoder is provided/configured, the UE enables the transform precoder for the Msg3 transmission, i.e., not for the PUSCH), wherein the transceiver is further configured to transmit the PUSCH (para. [0324]: UE is scheduled by a DCI format to transmit PUSCH over multiple slots): with transform precoding and without the configuration, when transform precoding is enabled, OR without transform precoding and with the configuration, when transform precoding is disabled (OUCHI, para. [0038], [0557]: The RRC parameter transformPrecoder indicates the UE specific selection of the transform precoder for a PUSCH. If the transformPrecoder is absent/not configured, the UE applies the value of the msg3-transformPrecoder to the transform precoder for the PUSCH).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teaching of NOGAMI with the teaching of OUCHI to include the above features such transmitting the PUSCH: with transform precoding and without the configuration, when transform precoding is enabled, OR without transform precoding and with the configuration, when transform precoding is disabled as taught by OUCHI. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide systems and methods that improve communication flexibility.
Regarding claim 2, NOGAMI and OUCHI disclose the UE of Claim 1, however NOGAMI further teaches wherein: the TPI field comprises one bit (para. [0337]: The ‘transform precoding indicator’ field may be a 1-bit field), a bit value of 0 indicates transform precoding enabled (para. [0337]: while the ‘transform precoding indicator’ field value equal to “0” may indicate that the transform precoder applies (the transform precoder is actually enabled)), and a bit value of 1 indicates transform precoding disabled (para. [0337]: the ‘transform precoding indicator’ field value equal to “1” may indicate that the transform precoder does not apply (the transform precoder is actually disabled)).
Regarding claim 3, NOGAMI and OUCHI disclose the UE of Claim 1, wherein: the DCI format schedules the transmission of the PUSCH on a first carrier (NOGAMI, para. [0149]: The DCI format is at least used for scheduling of a PUSCH for a cell (or arranged on a cell)) and a transmission of one other PUSCH on a second carrier (NOGAMI, para. [0208]: Retransmission of the message 3 PUSCH (i.e., other PUSCH) is scheduled by DCI format), OUCHI further teaches the TPI field includes two or more bits (para. [0628]: the transform precoding indicator field may include 2 bits), and a first bit is associated with the transmission of the PUSCH on the first carrier (para. [0159]: The DCI format 0_1/0_2 is at least used for scheduling of a PUSCH for a cell (or arranged on a cell)) and a second bit is associated with the transmission of the one other PUSCH on the second carrier (para. [0165]: an uplink component carrier is two or more, the number of bits for the BWP field included in the DCI format 0_1/0_2 used for scheduling a PUSCH arranged on the uplink component carrier may be one or more).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teaching of NOGAMI with the teaching of OUCHI to include the above features such that the TPI field includes two or more bits, and a first bit is associated with the transmission of the PUSCH on the first carrier and a second bit is associated with the transmission of the one other PUSCH on the second carrier as taught by OUCHI. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide systems and methods that improve communication flexibility.
Regarding claim 5, NOGAMI and OUCHI disclose the UE of Claim 1, however, OUCHI further teaches wherein: the DCI format is a DCI format 1_0 with a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) scrambled by a cell-radio network temporary identifier(C-RNTI) (OUCHI, para. [0208]: a DCI format 1_0 with cyclic redundancy check (CRC) scrambled by either a C-RNTI (Cell-Radio Network Temporary Identifier)), and the transmission of the PUSCH is with repetitions (OUCHI, para. [0286]: PUSCH transmission with repetitions).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teaching of NOGAMI with the teaching of OUCHI to include the above features such that the DCI format is a DCI format 1_0 with a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) scrambled by a cell-radio network temporary identifier(C-RNTI), and the transmission of the PUSCH is with repetitions as taught by OUCHI. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide systems and methods that improve communication flexibility.
Regarding claim 6, NOGAMI and OUCHI disclose the UE of Claim 1, further, NOGAMI teaches wherein: a first field of the DCI format includes a number of bits (para. [0024] [0029] [0155]: a number of bits included in the DCI format), the number of bits depends on the first information (para. [0024]: the number of bits may be included in the DCI format with CRC scrambled by C-RNTI with the first information field), the first field is positioned after the TPI field (FIG. 12: shows that the information fields positioned after the transform precoder indication field), the second information indicates that the TPI field of the DCI format is present (para. [0023]: the second information field in the DCI format with CRC scrambled by C-RNTI with the first information field indicating the transform precoder as enabled), and the first field of the DCI format comprises a corresponding number of bits associated with transform precoding set to disabled regardless of whether the TPI field indicates that transform precoding is enabled or disabled (para. [0337]: the value of the ‘transform precoding indicator’ field may indicate whether transform precoder applies or not (i.e., whether the transform precoding is enabled or disabled), even when the transform precoder is not enabled (e.g., disabled) by the RRC parameter transformPrecoder).
Regarding claim 7, NOGAMI and OUCHI disclose the UE of Claim 1, and further NOGAMI teaches wherein: a first field of the DCI format includes a number of bits (para. [0024] [0029] [0155]: a number of bits included in the DCI format), the number of bits depends on the first information (para. [0024]: the number of bits may be included in the DCI format with CRC scrambled by C-RNTI with the first information field), the first field is positioned after the TPI field (FIG. 12: shows that the information fields positioned after the transform precoder indication field), the second information does not indicate the TPI field of the DCI format is present (para. [0370]: a second information field in the DCI format with CRC scrambled by C-RNTI with the first information field indicating the transform precoder as disabled), and the first field of the DCI format comprises one of: a first number of bits when the first information indicates transform precoding is enabled, or a second number of bits when the first information indicates transform precoding is disabled (para. [0028]: a first number of bits may be included in a second information field in the DCI format with CRC scrambled by C-RNTI with the first information field indicating the transform precoder as disabled).
Regarding claim 8, NOGAMI discloses a base station (BS) (FIG. 5: base station device 3) comprising: a transceiver (FIG. 5: wireless transmission/reception unit 30) configured to transmit: first information by higher layers (FIG. 5: Higher-layer processing unit 34) indicating whether transform precoding is enabled or disabled (para. [0024]: the first information field indicating the transform precoder as disabled), second information by higher layers indicating a presence of a transform precoder indication (TPI) field in a downlink control information (DCI) format (para. [0318]: The RRC parameter dynamicSwitchingTransformPrecoder may indicate that the ‘transform precoding indicator’ field is included in the DCI format), third information by higher layers for a configuration related to a resource allocation associated with receptions of physical uplink shared channels (PUSCHs) with transform precoding disabled (para. 331: For PUSCH transmission with a configured grant, if the UE is configured with the RRC parameter transformPrecoder in configuredGrantConfig, the UE may, for this PUSCH transmission, consider the transform precoding disabled according to this parameter), and a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) providing the DCI format that schedules a reception of a PUSCH (para. 148, 309: if the DCI with the scheduling grant was received with DCI format, the UE may, for this PUSCH transmission, consider the transform precoding either enabled or disabled according to the RRC parameter msg3-transformPrecoder), wherein, when the second information indicates that the TPI field is present (para. [0369]: second information indicates the presence of a transform decoder), the DCI format includes the TPI field (para. [0313][0318]: the ‘transform precoding indicator’ field (also referred to as transform precoding field or transform precoder field) is included in the DCI format).
NOGAMI teaches that when transform precoding indicator field value indicates that the transform precoder does not apply, thus to follow the RRC configuration about the transform precoder, and when transform precoding indiator field value indicates that the transform precoder applies, thus not to follow the RRC configuration about the transform precoder to the PUSCH (para. [0337]). Further, Ouchi teaches a processor operably coupled to the transceiver, the processor configured to determine: whether the transform precoding is enabled or disabled based on the TPI field, that the configuration is used when transform precoding is disabled, and that the configuration is not used when transform precoding is enabled; wherein the transceiver is further configured to receive the PUSCH: with transform precoding and without the configuration, when transform precoding is enabled, or without transform precoding and with the configuration, when transform precoding is disabled.
In the same field of endeavor, OUCHI teaches a processor (FIG. 6: processing unit 16) operably coupled to the transceiver (FIG. 6: wireless transmission/reception 10), the processor configured to determine: whether the transform precoding is enabled or disabled based on the TPI field (OUCHI, para. [0565]: the UE shall, for this PUSCH transmission, consider the transform precoding either enabled or disabled according to the DCI ‘transform precoding indicator’ field), that the configuration is used when transform precoding is disabled (para. [0038]: If the transformPrecoder is absent/not configured, the UE applies the value of the msg3-transformPrecoder to the transform precoder for the PUSCH), that the configuration is not used when transform precoding is enabled (OUCHI, para. [0039]: If the msg3-transformPrecoder is provided/configured, the UE enables the transform precoder for the Msg3 transmission, i.e., not for the PUSCH), wherein the transceiver is further configured to transmit the PUSCH (para. [0324]: UE is scheduled by a DCI format to transmit PUSCH over multiple slots): with transform precoding and without the configuration, when transform precoding is enabled, OR without transform precoding and with the configuration, when transform precoding is disabled (OUCHI, para. [0038], [0557]: The RRC parameter transformPrecoder indicates the UE specific selection of the transform precoder for a PUSCH. If the transformPrecoder is absent/not configured, the UE applies the value of the msg3-transformPrecoder to the transform precoder for the PUSCH).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teaching of NOGAMI with the teaching of OUCHI to include the above features such transmitting the PUSCH: with transform precoding and without the configuration, when transform precoding is enabled, OR without transform precoding and with the configuration, when transform precoding is disabled as taught by OUCHI. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide systems and methods that improve communication flexibility.
Regarding claim 9, NOGAMI and OUCHI disclose the BS of Claim 8, and further, NOGAMI teaches wherein: the TPI field comprises one bit (para. [0337]: The ‘transform precoding indicator’ field may be a 1-bit field), a bit value of 0 indicates transform precoding enabled (para. [0337]: while the ‘transform precoding indicator’ field value equal to “0” may indicate that the transform precoder applies (the transform precoder is actually enabled)), and a bit value of 1 indicates transform precoding disabled (para. [0337]: the ‘transform precoding indicator’ field value equal to “1” may indicate that the transform precoder does not apply (the transform precoder is actually disabled)).
Regarding claim 10, NOGAMI and OUCHI disclose the BS of Claim 8, wherein: the DCI format schedules the reception of the PUSCH on a first carrier (NOGAMI, para. [0149]: The DCI format is at least used for scheduling of a PUSCH for a cell (or arranged on a cell)) and a reception of one other PUSCH on a second carrier (NOGAMI, para. [0208]: Retransmission of the message 3 PUSCH (i.e., other PUSCH) is scheduled by DCI format), OUCHI further teaches the TPI field includes two or more bits (para. [0628]: the transform precoding indicator field may include 2 bits), and a first bit is associated with the transmission of the PUSCH on the first carrier (para. [0159]: The DCI format 0_1/0_2 is at least used for scheduling of a PUSCH for a cell (or arranged on a cell)) and a second bit is associated with the transmission of the one other PUSCH on the second carrier (para. [0165]: an uplink component carrier is two or more, the number of bits for the BWP field included in the DCI format 0_1/0_2 used for scheduling a PUSCH arranged on the uplink component carrier may be one or more).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teaching of NOGAMI with the teaching of OUCHI to include the above features such that the TPI field includes two or more bits, and a first bit is associated with the transmission of the PUSCH on the first carrier and a second bit is associated with the transmission of the one other PUSCH on the second carrier as taught by OUCHI. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide systems and methods that improve communication flexibility.
Regarding claim 12, NOGAMI and OUCHI disclose the BS of Claim 8, wherein: a first field of the DCI format includes a number of bits (para. [0024] [0029] [0155]: a number of bits included in the DCI format), the number of bits depends on the first information (para. [0024]: the number of bits may be included in the DCI format with CRC scrambled by C-RNTI with the first information field), the first field is positioned after the TPI field (FIG. 12: shows that the information fields positioned after the transform precoder indication field), the second information indicates that the TPI field of the DCI format is present (para. [0023]: the second information field in the DCI format with CRC scrambled by C-RNTI with the first information field indicating the transform precoder as enabled), and the first field of the DCI format comprises a corresponding number of bits associated with transform precoding set to disabled regardless of whether the TPI field indicates that transform precoding is enabled or disabled (para. [0337]: the value of the ‘transform precoding indicator’ field may indicate whether transform precoder applies or not (i.e., whether the transform precoding is enabled or disabled), even when the transform precoder is not enabled (e.g., disabled) by the RRC parameter transformPrecoder).
Regarding claim 13, NOGAMI and OUCHI disclose the BS of Claim 8, wherein: a first field of the DCI format includes a number of bits (para. [0024] [0029] [0155]: a number of bits included in the DCI format), the number of bits depends on the first information (para. [0024]: the number of bits may be included in the DCI format with CRC scrambled by C-RNTI with the first information field), the first field is positioned after the TPI field (FIG. 12: shows that the information fields positioned after the transform precoder indication field), the second information does not indicate the TPI field of the DCI format is present (para. [0370]: a second information field in the DCI format with CRC scrambled by C-RNTI with the first information field indicating the transform precoder as disabled), and the first field of the DCI format comprises one of: a first number of bits when the first information indicates transform precoding is enabled, or a second number of bits when the first information indicates transform precoding is disabled (para. [0028]: a first number of bits may be included in a second information field in the DCI format with CRC scrambled by C-RNTI with the first information field indicating the transform precoder as disabled).
Regarding claim 14, NOGAMI discloses a method comprising: receiving: first information by higher layers (FIG. 6: Higher-layer processing unit 16) indicating whether transform precoding is enabled or disabled (para. [0024]: the first information field indicating the transform precoder as disabled), second information by higher layers indicating a presence of a transform precoder indication (TPI) field in a downlink control information (DCI) format (para. [0318]: The RRC parameter dynamicSwitchingTransformPrecoder may indicate that the ‘transform precoding indicator’ field is included in the DCI format), third information by higher layers for a configuration related to a resource allocation associated with transmissions of physical uplink shared channels (PUSCHs) with transform precoding disabled (para. 331: For PUSCH transmission with a configured grant, if the UE is configured with the RRC parameter transformPrecoder in configuredGrantConfig, the UE may, for this PUSCH transmission, consider the transform precoding disabled according to this parameter), and a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) providing the DCI format that schedules a transmission of a PUSCH (para. 148, 309: if the DCI with the scheduling grant was received with DCI format, the UE may, for this PUSCH transmission, consider the transform precoding either enabled or disabled according to the RRC parameter msg3-transformPrecoder), wherein, when the second information indicates that the TPI field is present (para. [0369]: second information indicates the presence of a transform decoder), the DCI format includes the TPI field (para. [0313][0318]: the ‘transform precoding indicator’ field (also referred to as transform precoding field or transform precoder field) is included in the DCI format).
NOGAMI teaches that when transform precoding indicator field value indicates that the transform precoder does not apply, thus to follow the RRC configuration about the transform precoder, and when transform precoding indiator field value indicates that the transform precoder applies, thus not to follow the RRC configuration about the transform precoder to the PUSCH (para. [0337]). Further, Ouchi teaches determining: whether the transform precoding is enabled or disabled based on the TPI field, that the configuration is used when transform precoding is disabled, and that the configuration is not used when transform precoding is enabled; and transmitting the PUSCH: with transform precoding and without the configuration, when transform precoding is enabled, or without transform precoding and with the configuration, when transform precoding is disabled.
In the same field of endeavor, OUCHI teaches determining: whether the transform precoding is enabled or disabled based on the TPI field (OUCHI, para. [0565]: the UE shall, for this PUSCH transmission, consider the transform precoding either enabled or disabled according to the DCI ‘transform precoding indicator’ field), that the configuration is used when transform precoding is disabled (para. [0038]: If the transformPrecoder is absent/not configured, the UE applies the value of the msg3-transformPrecoder to the transform precoder for the PUSCH), that the configuration is not used when transform precoding is enabled (OUCHI, para. [0039]: If the msg3-transformPrecoder is provided/configured, the UE enables the transform precoder for the Msg3 transmission, i.e., not for the PUSCH), transmitting the PUSCH (para. [0324]: UE is scheduled by a DCI format to transmit PUSCH over multiple slots): with transform precoding and without the configuration, when transform precoding is enabled, OR without transform precoding and with the configuration, when transform precoding is disabled (OUCHI, para. [0038], [0557]: The RRC parameter transformPrecoder indicates the UE specific selection of the transform precoder for a PUSCH. If the transformPrecoder is absent/not configured, the UE applies the value of the msg3-transformPrecoder to the transform precoder for the PUSCH).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teaching of NOGAMI with the teaching of OUCHI to include the above features such transmitting the PUSCH: with transform precoding and without the configuration, when transform precoding is enabled, OR without transform precoding and with the configuration, when transform precoding is disabled as taught by OUCHI. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide systems and methods that improve communication flexibility.
Regarding claim 15, NOGAMI and OUCHI disclose the method of Claim 14, wherein: the TPI field comprises one bit (para. [0337]: The ‘transform precoding indicator’ field may be a 1-bit field), a bit value of 0 indicates transform precoding enabled (para. [0337]: while the ‘transform precoding indicator’ field value equal to “0” may indicate that the transform precoder applies (the transform precoder is actually enabled)), and a bit value of 1 indicates transform precoding disabled (para. [0337]: the ‘transform precoding indicator’ field value equal to “1” may indicate that the transform precoder does not apply (the transform precoder is actually disabled)).
Regarding claim 16, NOGAMI and OUCHI disclose the method of Claim 14, wherein: the DCI format schedules the transmission of the PUSCH on a first carrier (NOGAMI, para. [0149]: The DCI format is at least used for scheduling of a PUSCH for a cell (or arranged on a cell)) and a transmission of one other PUSCH on a second carrier (NOGAMI, para. [0208]: Retransmission of the message 3 PUSCH (i.e., other PUSCH) is scheduled by DCI format), OUCHI further teaches the TPI field includes two or more bits (para. [0628]: the transform precoding indicator field may include 2 bits), and a first bit is associated with the transmission of the PUSCH on the first carrier (para. [0159]: The DCI format 0_1/0_2 is at least used for scheduling of a PUSCH for a cell (or arranged on a cell)) and a second bit is associated with the transmission of the one other PUSCH on the second carrier (para. [0165]: an uplink component carrier is two or more, the number of bits for the BWP field included in the DCI format 0_1/0_2 used for scheduling a PUSCH arranged on the uplink component carrier may be one or more).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teaching of NOGAMI with the teaching of OUCHI to include the above features such that the TPI field includes two or more bits, and a first bit is associated with the transmission of the PUSCH on the first carrier and a second bit is associated with the transmission of the one other PUSCH on the second carrier as taught by OUCHI. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide systems and methods that improve communication flexibility.
Regarding claim 18, NOGAMI and OUCHI disclose the method of Claim 14, however, OUCHI further teaches wherein: the DCI format is a DCI format 1_0 with a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) scrambled by a cell-radio network temporary identifier(C-RNTI) (OUCHI, para. [0208]: a DCI format 1_0 with cyclic redundancy check (CRC) scrambled by either a C-RNTI (Cell-Radio Network Temporary Identifier)), and the transmission of the PUSCH is with repetitions (OUCHI, para. [0286]: PUSCH transmission with repetitions).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teaching of NOGAMI with the teaching of OUCHI to include the above features such that the DCI format is a DCI format 1_0 with a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) scrambled by a cell-radio network temporary identifier(C-RNTI), and the transmission of the PUSCH is with repetitions as taught by OUCHI. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide systems and methods that improve communication flexibility.
Regarding claim 19, NOGAMI and OUCHI disclose the method of Claim 14, wherein: a first field of the DCI format includes a number of bits (para. [0024] [0029] [0155]: a number of bits included in the DCI format), the number of bits depends on the first information (para. [0024]: the number of bits may be included in the DCI format with CRC scrambled by C-RNTI with the first information field), the first field is positioned after the TPI field (FIG. 12: shows that the information fields positioned after the transform precoder indication field), the second information indicates that the TPI field of the DCI format is present (para. [0023]: the second information field in the DCI format with CRC scrambled by C-RNTI with the first information field indicating the transform precoder as enabled), and the first field of the DCI format comprises a corresponding number of bits associated with transform precoding set to disabled regardless of whether the TPI field indicates that transform precoding is enabled or disabled (para. [0337]: the value of the ‘transform precoding indicator’ field may indicate whether transform precoder applies or not (i.e., whether the transform precoding is enabled or disabled), even when the transform precoder is not enabled (e.g., disabled) by the RRC parameter transformPrecoder).
Regarding claim 20, NOGAMI and OUCHI disclose the method of Claim 14, wherein: a first field of the DCI format includes a number of bits (para. [0024] [0029] [0155]: a number of bits included in the DCI format), the number of bits depends on the first information (para. [0024]: the number of bits may be included in the DCI format with CRC scrambled by C-RNTI with the first information field), the first field is positioned after the TPI field (FIG. 12: shows that the information fields positioned after the transform precoder indication field), the second information does not indicate the TPI field of the DCI format is present (para. [0370]: a second information field in the DCI format with CRC scrambled by C-RNTI with the first information field indicating the transform precoder as disabled), and the first field of the DCI format comprises one of: a first number of bits when the first information indicates transform precoding is enabled, or a second number of bits when the first information indicates transform precoding is disabled (para. [0028]: a first number of bits may be included in a second information field in the DCI format with CRC scrambled by C-RNTI with the first information field indicating the transform precoder as disabled).
11. Claims 4, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NOGAMI et al. (US 20240251422 A1) in view of OUCHI et al. (US 20230232406 A1), and further in view of Abdoli et al. (US 20200267511).
Regarding claim 4, NOGAMI and OUCHI disclose the UE of Claim 1, the references fail to teach wherein the transceiver is further configured to: receive the PDCCH in a first sub-band of a carrier, and transmit the PUSCH in a second sub-band of the carrier that does not overlap with the first sub-band, wherein the PDCCH reception and the PUSCH transmission occur in non-overlapping time intervals.
In the same field of endeavor, Abdoli teaches wherein the transceiver is further configured to: receive the PDCCH in a first sub-band of a carrier (Abdoli, para. [0071]: A scheduling cell is a serving cell where the UE receives the PDCCH containing the multicast DCI. The PDCCH, where a UE locates the RBs allocated for multicast transmission based on a reference sub-band), and transmit the PUSCH in a second sub-band of the carrier that does not overlap with the first sub-band (Abdoli, FIG. 5, para. [0058] [0062] [0091]: each UE within a group of UEs to transmit data in physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) over the same set of UL resources in a sub-band used for the multicast PUSCH), wherein the PDCCH reception and the PUSCH transmission occur in non-overlapping time intervals (para. [0067]: transmit and/or receive a multicast transmission over different component carriers to provide redundancy in order to achieve improved reliability, i.e., PDCCH reception and PUSCH transmission are non-overlapping in time intervals).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teaching of NOGAMI with the teaching of Abdoli to include the above features such that receiving the PDCCH in a first sub-band of a carrier, transmitting the PUSCH further comprises transmitting the PUSCH in a second sub-band of the carrier that does not overlap with the first sub-band, and the PDCCH reception and the PUSCH transmission occur in non-overlapping time intervals as taught by Abdoli. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide redundancy in order to achieve improved reliability (para. [0067]).
Regarding claim 11, NOGAMI and OUCHI disclose the BS of Claim 8, the references fail to teach wherein the transceiver is further configured to: receive the PDCCH in a first sub-band of a carrier, and transmit the PUSCH in a second sub-band of the carrier that does not overlap with the first sub-band, wherein the PDCCH reception and the PUSCH transmission occur in non-overlapping time intervals.
In the same field of endeavor, Abdoli teaches wherein the transceiver is further configured to: receive the PDCCH in a first sub-band of a carrier (Abdoli, para. [0071]: A scheduling cell is a serving cell where the UE receives the PDCCH containing the multicast DCI. The PDCCH, where a UE locates the RBs allocated for multicast transmission based on a reference sub-band), and transmit the PUSCH in a second sub-band of the carrier that does not overlap with the first sub-band (Abdoli, FIG. 5, para. [0058] [0062] [0091]: each UE within a group of UEs to transmit data in physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) over the same set of UL resources in a sub-band used for the multicast PUSCH), wherein the PDCCH reception and the PUSCH transmission occur in non-overlapping time intervals (para. [0067]: transmit and/or receive a multicast transmission over different component carriers to provide redundancy in order to achieve improved reliability, i.e., PDCCH reception and PUSCH transmission are non-overlapping in time intervals).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teaching of NOGAMI with the teaching of Abdoli to include the above features such that receiving the PDCCH in a first sub-band of a carrier, transmitting the PUSCH further comprises transmitting the PUSCH in a second sub-band of the carrier that does not overlap with the first sub-band, and the PDCCH reception and the PUSCH transmission occur in non-overlapping time intervals as taught by Abdoli. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide redundancy in order to achieve improved reliability (para. [0067]).
Regarding claim 17, NOGAMI and OUCHI disclose the method of Claim 14, the references fail to teach wherein: receiving the PDCCH further comprises receiving the PDCCH in a first sub-band of a carrier, transmitting the PUSCH further comprises transmitting the PUSCH in a second sub-band of the carrier that does not overlap with the first sub-band, and the PDCCH reception and the PUSCH transmission occur in non-overlapping time intervals.
In the same field of endeavor, Abdoli teaches wherein: receiving the PDCCH further comprises receiving the PDCCH in a first sub-band of a carrier (Abdoli, para. [0071]: A scheduling cell is a serving cell where the UE receives the PDCCH containing the multicast DCI. The PDCCH, where a UE locates the RBs allocated for multicast transmission based on a reference sub-band), transmitting the PUSCH further comprises transmitting the PUSCH in a second sub-band of the carrier that does not overlap with the first sub-band (Abdoli, FIG. 5, para. [0058] [0062] [0091]: each UE within a group of UEs to transmit data in physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) over the same set of UL resources in a sub-band used for the multicast PUSCH), wherein the PDCCH reception and the PUSCH transmission occur in non-overlapping time intervals (para. [0067]: transmit and/or receive a multicast transmission over different component carriers to provide redundancy in order to achieve improved reliability, i.e., PDCCH reception and PUSCH transmission are non-overlapping in time intervals).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teaching of NOGAMI with the teaching of Abdoli to include the above features such that receiving the PDCCH in a first sub-band of a carrier, transmitting the PUSCH further comprises transmitting the PUSCH in a second sub-band of the carrier that does not overlap with the first sub-band, and the PDCCH reception and the PUSCH transmission occur in non-overlapping time intervals as taught by Abdoli. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide redundancy in order to achieve improved reliability (para. [0067]).
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) ABOTABL et al. (US-20220271909-A1) discloses the base station may opportunistically convert one or more downlink slots into full-duplex slots that include overlapping or non-overlapping downlink and uplink resource allocations to support simultaneous downlink transmission and uplink reception in the same frequency band, referred to as in-band frequency duplexing (IBFD), or in the same frequency sub-band, referred to as sub-band frequency duplexing (SBFD).
b) Papasakellariou et al. (US 20160226649 A1) discloses transmitting UL information types when one or more repetitions for a transmission of a first information type at least partially overlap with one or more repetitions of a second information type.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN F VOLTAIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-3953. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:30 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, REBECCA E. SONG can be reached at (571)270-3667. 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.
/JEAN F VOLTAIRE/Examiner, Art Unit 2417
/REBECCA E SONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2417
Prosecution Insights