DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-30 are currently pending.
Drawings
Figure 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (see, e.g., U.S. Publication No. 20220104033; figure 2). See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 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 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 2, 20, 21, 26, 27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2025/0254755 A1 (hereinafter “Fu”) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fu, in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0303895 A1 (hereinafter “Lin”).
Regarding claims 1, 20, 26, and 29: Fu teaches a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: a memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory, configured to:
receive a configuration of cell discontinuous transmission and cell discontinuous reception (see, e.g., [0026]-[0028]; a base station sends network-side DTX/DRX configuration information to a UE); and
receive a dynamic indication to skip reception or transmission of one or more channels during a time interval (see, e.g., [0050], [0052], [0062], [0068]-[0073]; configuration information can be adjusted; and/or dynamic indication information is sent to the UE that instructs behavior, including transmission and reception for a duration).
Fu does not explicitly state the term “skip.” To the extent this feature is not inherent to the system of Fu, it is nevertheless taught in Lin (see, e.g., [0046], [0053], [0185]-[0190]; note skip functionality associated with C-DRX). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Lin, such as the skipping and/or DRX functionality, within the system of Fu, in order to improve device power conservation and/or align UE DRX with network DTX.
The rationale set forth above regarding the UE of claim 1 is applicable to the node and methods of claims 20, 26, and 29, respectively.
Regarding claims 2, 21, and 27: Fu alternatively modified by Lin further teaches wherein the time interval corresponds to a non-active time of the cell discontinuous transmission or a non-active time of the cell discontinuous reception (see e.g., Fu [0071]-[0078]; and/or Lin [0185]-[0190]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 2.
The rationale set forth above regarding the UE of claim 2 is applicable to the node and method of claims 21 and 27, respectively.
9. Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu, alternatively in view of Lin, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0015209 A1 (hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 3: Fu alternatively modified by Lin substantially teaches the UE as set forth above regarding claim 1, but does not explicitly state wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: apply the dynamic indication a quantity of symbols after a symbol associated with a confirmation that the dynamic indication was received. However, this feature is taught by Zhang (see, e.g., [0176], [0185], [0187]; a resource is configured for confirming the reception of control information). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Zhang, such as the signaling functionality, within the system of Fu alternatively modified by Lin, in order to ensure successful communication.
Regarding claim 10: Fu alternatively modified by Lin further teaches multiple indications with respect to skipping (see, e.g., Fu [0050], [0052], [0062], [0068]-[0073]; and/or Lin [0046], [0053], [0185]-[0190]; note adjustment functionality), but does not explicitly state the feature of multicast. Therefore, Fu alternatively modified by Lin fails to explicitly state “wherein the dynamic indication is a first dynamic indication, the one or more channels are one or more first channels, and the time interval is a first time interval, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive downlink control information that includes a second dynamic indication to skip reception or transmission of one or more second channels during a second time interval, wherein the downlink control information is multicast to a UE group that includes the UE.” To the extent this feature is not inherent to Fu alternatively modified by Lin (by virtue of group communication; see, e.g., Fu [0121]), this feature is nevertheless taught by Zhang (see, e.g., [0166], [0176], [0185], [0187]; note group signaling; note also multiple DCIs). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Zhang, such as the signaling functionality, within the system of Fu alternatively modified by Lin, in order to adapt to network conditions.
10. Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 15-19, 22-25, 28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu, alternatively in view of Lin, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0232481 A1 (hereinafter “Park”).
Regarding claims 4, 22, 28, and 30: Fu alternatively modified by Lin further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to receive the dynamic indication, are configured to: receive downlink control information that includes the dynamic indication, wherein the downlink control information is multicast to a UE group that includes the UE (see e.g., Fu [0037], [0045]; and/or Lin [0185]-[0190]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 4.
Fu alternatively modified by Lin does not explicitly state the term “multicast.” To the extent this feature is not inherent to the system of Fu alternatively modified by Lin (by virtue of the group communication taught therein), this feature is nevertheless taught in Park (see, e.g., [0429]; note multicast DCI). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Park, such as the signaling functionality, within the system of Fu alternatively modified by Lin, in order to improve flexibility and efficiency in control signaling.
The rationale set forth above regarding the UE of claim 4 is applicable to the node and methods of claims 22, 28, and 30, respectively.
Regarding claim 5: Fu alternatively modified by Lin and Park further teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to: transmit hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgment information (see, e.g., Fu [0116]; Lin [0223], [0228]-[0229]; and/or Park [0135], [0417]). The motivations for modification set forth above regarding claims 1 and 4 are applicable to claim 5.
Regarding claims 11 and 23: Fu alternatively modified by Lin substantially teaches the UE as set forth above regarding claim 1, but does not explicitly state wherein the one or more processors, to receive the dynamic indication, are configured to: receive downlink control information that includes the dynamic indication and a downlink grant for a broadcast physical downlink shared channel. However, this feature is taught in Park (see, e.g., [0429]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Park, such as the signaling functionality, within the system of Fu alternatively modified by Lin, in order to improve flexibility and efficiency in control signaling.
The rationale set forth above regarding the UE of claim 11 is applicable to the node of claim 23.
Regarding claim 12: Fu alternatively modified by Lin and Park further teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to: transmit hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgment information (see, e.g., Fu [0116]; Lin [0223], [0228]-[0229]; and/or Park [0135], [0417]). The motivations for modification set forth above regarding claims 1 and 11 are applicable to claim 12.
Regarding claims 15 and 24: Fu alternatively modified by Lin substantially teaches the UE as set forth above regarding claim 1, but does not explicitly state wherein the one or more processors, to receive the dynamic indication, are configured to: receive downlink control information that includes the dynamic indication and a downlink grant for a unicast physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH). However, this feature is taught in Park (see, e.g., [0429]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Park, such as the signaling functionality, within the system of Fu alternatively modified by Lin, in order to improve flexibility and efficiency in control signaling.
The rationale set forth above regarding the UE of claim 15 is applicable to the node of claim 24.
Regarding claim 16: Fu alternatively modified by Lin and Park further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive the unicast physical downlink shared channel; and transmit hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgment information based at least in part on the unicast PDSCH (see, e.g., Fu [0116]; Lin [0223], [0228]-[0229]; and/or Park [0135], [0417]). The motivations for modification set forth above regarding claims 1 and 15 are applicable to claim 16.
Regarding claims 17 and 25: Fu alternatively modified by Lin substantially teaches the UE as set forth above regarding claim 1, but does not explicitly state wherein the one or more processors, to receive the dynamic indication, are configured to: receive downlink control information that includes the dynamic indication and an uplink grant for a unicast physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH). However, this feature is taught in Park (see, e.g., [0429]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Park, such as the signaling functionality, within the system of Fu alternatively modified by Lin, in order to improve flexibility and efficiency in control signaling.
The rationale set forth above regarding the UE of claim 17 is applicable to the node of claim 25.
Regarding claim 18: Fu alternatively modified by Lin and Park further teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to: transmit the unicast PUSCH (see, e.g., Park [0429]-[0432).
Regarding claim 19: Fu alternatively modified by Lin and Park further teaches [configuration] to: apply the dynamic indication a quantity of symbols after a last symbol of the unicast PUSCH. (see, e.g., Fu [0050], [0052], [0062], [0068]-[0073]; and/or Lin [0046], [0053], [0185]-[0190]; note also the explanation set forth above regarding claim 17). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to apply after the unicast in order to permit the granted transmission.
11. Claims 6-9, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu, alternatively in view of Lin, in further view of Park, and in further view of Zhang.
Regarding claim 6: Fu alternatively modified by Lin and Park substantially teaches the UE as set forth above regarding claim 4, but does not explicitly state wherein the one or more processors are configured to: transmit a confirmation that the dynamic indication was received a quantity of symbols after a symbol associated with the downlink control information. However, this feature is taught by Zhang (see, e.g., [0176], [0185], [0187]; a resource is configured for confirming the reception of control information). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Zhang, such as the signaling functionality, within the system of Fu alternatively modified by Lin and Park, in order to ensure successful communication.
Regarding claim 7: Fu alternatively modified by Lin and Park substantially teaches the UE as set forth above regarding claim 1, but does not explicitly state wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive a configuration of a resource for transmitting a confirmation that the dynamic indication was received. However, this feature is taught by Zhang (see, e.g., [0176], [0185], [0187]; a resource is configured for confirming the reception of control information). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Zhang, such as the signaling functionality, within the system of Fu alternatively modified by Lin and Park, in order to ensure successful communication.
Regarding claim 8: Fu alternatively modified by Lin and Zhang further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to receive the configuration of the resource for transmitting the confirmation, are configured to: receive a radio resource control configuration of a common resource configured for the UE group (see, e.g., Zhang [0176], [0185], [0187]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 7 is applicable to claim 8.
Regarding claim 9: Fu alternatively modified by Lin and Zhang further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to receive the configuration of the resource for transmitting the confirmation, are configured to: receive a radio resource control configuration of a resource configured for the UE, wherein the resource is one of a plurality of resources configured for respective UEs of the UE group (see, e.g., Zhang [0166], [0176], [0185], [0187]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 7 is applicable to claim 9.
Regarding claim 13: Fu alternatively modified by Lin and Park substantially teaches the UE as set forth above regarding claim 11, but does not explicitly state wherein the one or more processors are configured to: transmit a confirmation that the dynamic indication was received a quantity of symbols after a symbol associated with the downlink control information. However, this feature is taught by Zhang (see, e.g., [0176], [0185], [0187]; a resource is configured for confirming the reception of control information). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Zhang, such as the signaling functionality, within the system of Fu alternatively modified by Lin and Park, in order to ensure successful communication.
Regarding claim 14: Fu alternatively modified by Lin and Park further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive the broadcast physical downlink shared channel (see, e.g., Park [0429]), but does not explicitly state [configuration to] transmit a confirmation that the dynamic indication was received a quantity of symbols after a symbol associated with the broadcast physical downlink shared channel. However, this feature is taught by Zhang (see, e.g., [0176], [0185], [0187]; a resource is configured for confirming the reception of control information). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Zhang, such as the signaling functionality, within the system of Fu alternatively modified by Lin and Park, in order to ensure successful communication.
Relevant Art
12. The following prior art not relied upon in this Office action is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: See form PTO-892.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS SLOMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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.
/NICHOLAS SLOMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476