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 § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU et al PG PUB 2020/0396684 in view of XIN et al PG PUB 2025/0227715.
Re Claims 1 and 24, LIU et al teaches in figure 3, a UE comprising a memory 360 and a Controller/Processor 340 configuring to cause the UE to: receive a DCI format from a Base Station 102 (an apparatus, figure 2) indicating to the UE to skip PDCCH monitoring for a one or more DRX ON durations associated with C-DRX [0190 0191], wherein the DCI includes “one or more of” a skip indication as claimed. LIU et al fails to explicitly teach “skip transmission of HARQ feedback for the DCI”. However, XIN et al teaches in figure 8, a DCI format includes an indication whether a HARQ feedback is to be enabled/disabled for the received DCI [0142-0144].
By combining the teachings, the DCI format in LIU et al can be modified to include the indication to disabled the HARQ-feedback for the received DCI to conserve power. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to conserve power at the UE. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claim 2, LIU et al teaches in figure 3, a RF transceiver 310 coupled to Controller/processor 340 configured to cause the UE to receive the DCI.
Claims 3 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU et al PG PUB 2020/0396684 in view of XIN et al PG PUB 2025/0227715 as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of ZHAO PG PUB 2025/0167933.
Re Claims 3 and 25, LIU et al teaches the UE in figure 17, 1710, a PDCCH is monitored for DCI formats scheduling SPS PDSCH retransmission for the TB if the UE transmits a NACK 905 [0229]. LIU et al fails to explicitly teach “DCI includes the scheduling for retransmission of the successfully decoded PDSCH”. However, ZHAO teaches when the UE receives a retransmission scheduling information that was successfully decoded, the retransmission scheduling information is ignored [0137-0138]. By combining the teachings, if the UE in LIU et al receives a retransmission scheduling information that was successfully decoded, the UE can ignore the retransmission scheduling information to minimize duplicate retransmissions. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to reduce duplicate retransmissions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Claims 4 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU et al PG PUB 2020/0396684 in view of XIN et al PG PUB 2025/0227715 as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of KHOSHNEVISAN et al PG PUB 2021/0258107.
Re Claims 4 and 26, LIU et al teaches the DCI format includes the scheduling information for the PDSCH [0202]. LIU et al in view of XIN et al fails to explicitly teach the “skip indication comprises one or more of: a first bitmap of all zeros for a type-0 resource allocation. However, KHOSHNEVISAN et al teaches the UE may determine that the DCI message does not schedule a PDSCH communication based on DCI indicating all zeros in the resource allocation Type 0 [0075]. By combining the teachings, the DCI format in LIU et al can be modified to include the resource allocation Type 0 to indicate to the UE that PDSCH communication is not scheduled. In so doing, the UE can sleep to conserve power. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to conserve power. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Claims 5-7 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU et al PG PUB 2020/0396684 in view of XIN et al PG PUB 2025/0227715 as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of LI et al PG PUB 2025/0261171.
Re Claims 5 and 27, LIU et al teaches the DCI format includes the skip indication but fails to explicitly teach “the skip indication has a first number of adaption bits in the DCI that is different from a second number of associated PDCCH skip durations.”. However, LI et al teaches a DCI includes a PDCCH monitoring adaptation field of 1 or 2 bits wherein the single bit can indicate only one duration and the 2 bits can be configured for more than one duration [0173-0180] and is compliant with 5G NR. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have included the PDCCH monitoring adaptation field in the DCI format of LIU et al to be compliant with 5G NR implementation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claims 6-7, 28-29, LI et al teaches the single adaptation bit in the DCI can configured for a single PDCCH skip duration and 2-bit adaptation bits can be configured for more than one duration. Switching the duration mapping between single bit and the 2 bits would have been a matter of design choice as long as mappings are differentiated and produces the same result as before. Therefore, it would have been an obvious expedient of switching the duration mappings for the single bit and 2-bits.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU et al PG PUB 2020/0396684 in view of XIN et al PG PUB 2025/0227715 as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of ZHANG et al PG PUB 2020/0059390.
Re Claims 8-9, LIU et al teaches that DCI includes non-zero assignment for the for either downlink or uplink retransmission. LIU et al fails to explicitly teach “…TB size that is different than the initial downlink/uplink transmission TB size.”. However, ZHANG et al teaches a DCI scheduling the retransmission includes a bit field indicating multiple possible TBS [0592 0595]. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modify the DCI format in LIU et al include the “bit field” to indicate a different TBS than the initial transmission to improve reliability of the uplink/downlink retransmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU et al PG PUB 2020/0396684 in view of XIN et al PG PUB 2025/0227715 as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of ZHOU et al PG PUB 2024/0267931.
Re Claim 10, LIU et al teaches in response to the DCI, the DCI indicates to the UE to skip the PDCCH monitoring for a period of time. LIU et al fails to teach “an entry in an NDI in the DCI indicates a PDCCH monitoring adaption field…”. However, ZHOU et al teaches when a DCI includes a dummy value (an entry) in the NDI field, this can indicate a PDCCH monitoring adaptation [0339]. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified the DCI format in LIU et al to include PDCCH monitoring adaptation to enable power saving in the UE. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Claims 12, 13, 19, 20 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU et al PG PUB 2020/0396684 in view of ZHANG et al PG PUB 2020/0059390.
Re Claims 12, 19, 20 and 30, LIU et al teaches the BS communicates with the UE based on the outputted DCI wherein the DCI can include non-zero assignment for the for either downlink or uplink retransmission [0202]. LIU et al fails to explicitly teach “…TB size that is different than the initial downlink/uplink transmission TB size.”.
However, ZHANG et al teaches a DCI scheduling for the retransmission can include a bit field indicating multiple possible TBS [0592 0595]. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modify the DCI format in LIU et al include the “bit field” to indicate a different TBS than the initial transmission to improve reliability of the uplink/downlink retransmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claim 13, LIU et al teaches in figures 2, a RF transceiver 280a coupled to Controller/processor 288 configured to cause the BS (the network entity) to output the DCI.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU et al PG PUB 2020/0396684 in view of in view of ZHANG et al PG PUB 2020/0059390 as applied to Claim 12 above and further in view of ZHAO PG PUB 2025/0167933.
Re Claim 14, LIU et al teaches the UE in figure 17, 1710, PDCCH is monitored for DCI formats scheduling SPS PDSCH retransmission for the TB if the UE transmits a NACK 905 [0229]. LIU et al fails to explicitly teach “DCI includes the scheduling for retransmission of the successfully decoded PDSCH”. However, ZHAO teaches when the UE receives a retransmission scheduling information that was successfully decoded, the retransmission scheduling information is ignored [0137-0138]. By combining the teachings, if the UE in LIU et al receives a retransmission scheduling information that was successfully decoded, the UE can ignore the retransmission scheduling information to minimize duplicate retransmissions. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to reduce duplicate retransmissions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU et al PG PUB 2020/0396684 in view of ZHANG et al PG PUB 2020/0059390 as applied to Claim 12 above and further in view of KHOSHNEVISAN et al PG PUB 2021/0258107.
Re Claim 15, LIU et al teaches the DCI format includes the scheduling information for the PDSCH [0202]. LIU et al in view of XIN et al fails to explicitly teach the “skip indication comprises one or more of: a first bitmap of all zeros for a type-0 resource allocation. However, KHOSHNEVISAN et al teaches the UE may determine that the DCI message does not schedule a PDSCH communication based on DCI indicating all zeros in the resource allocation Type 0 [0075]. By combining the teachings, the DCI format in LIU et al can be modified to include the resource allocation Type 0 to indicate to the UE that PDSCH communication is not scheduled. In so doing, the UE can sleep to conserve power. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to conserve power. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU et al PG PUB 2020/0396684 in view of ZHANG et al PG PUB 2020/0059390 as applied to Claim 12 above and further in view of LI et al PG PUB 2025/0261171.
Re Claim 16, LIU et al teaches the DCI format includes the skip indication but fails to explicitly teach “the skip indication has a first number of adaption bits in the DCI that is different from a second number of associated PDCCH skip durations.”. However, LI et al teaches a DCI includes a PDCCH monitoring adaptation field of 1 or 2 bits wherein the single bit can indicate only one duration and the 2 bits can be configured for more than one duration [0173-0180] and is compliant with 5G NR. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have included the PDCCH monitoring adaptation field in the DCI format of LIU et al to be compliant with 5G NR implementation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claims 17-18, LI et al teaches the single adaptation bit in the DCI can configured for a single PDCCH skip duration and 2-bit adaptation bits can be configured for more than one duration. Switching the duration mapping between single bit and the 2 bits would have been a matter of design choice as long as mappings are differentiated and produces the same result as before. Therefore, it would have been an obvious expedient of switching the duration mappings for the single bit and 2-bits.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU et al PG PUB 2020/0396684 in view of ZHANG et al PG PUB 2020/0059390 as applied to Claim 12 above and further in view of ZHOU et al PG PUB 2024/0267931.
Re Claim 21, LIU et al teaches in response to the DCI, the DCI indicates to the UE to skip the PDCCH monitoring for a period of time. LIU et al fails to teach “an entry in a NDI in the DCI indicates a PDCCH monitoring adaption field…”. However, ZHOU et al teaches when a DCI includes a dummy value (an entry) in the NDI field, this indicates a PDCCH monitoring adaptation [0339]. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified the DCI format in LIU et al to include PDCCH monitoring adaptation to enable power saving in the UE. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU et al PG PUB 2020/0396684 in view of ZHANG et al PG PUB 2020/0059390 as applied to Claim 12 above and further in view of XIN et al PG PUB 2025/0227715.
Re Claim 23, LIU et al teaches the DCI format from a Base Station 102 indicating to the UE to skip PDCCH monitoring for a one or more DRX ON durations associated with C-DRX [0190 0191]. LIU et al in view of ZHANG et al fails to explicitly teach “skip reception of HARQ feedback for the DCI”. However, XIN et al teaches in figure 8, a DCI format includes an indication whether a HARQ feedback is to be enabled/disabled for the received DCI [0142-0144]. By combining the teachings, the DCI format in LIU et al can be modified to include the indication to disabled the HARQ-feedback for the received DCI to conserve power. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to conserve power at the UE. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 22 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re Claims 11 and 22, prior art fails to teach a PDCCH monitoring adaptation field of the DCI does not include PDCCH skipping information, cause the UE to restart a CDRX inactivity timer in response to the DCI as claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3130. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM ET.
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, KASSIM KHALAD can be reached at 5712703770. 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.
/ANDREW LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475