Response to Amendment
This office action in response to an amendment received on October 9, 2025
Claims 1 and 19 have been newly amended.
Claims 2-3, 9, 13, and 20 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 4-10, 11-12, 14-19, and 21 are pending.
Response to Arguments
The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 9 has been withdrawn because of the cancellation of the claim.
Applicant argues that Rastegardoost does not explicitly indicate “performing, by the user device, a transmission on one or more cells within the selected subset of cells while performing the dynamic uplink transmission switching operation within the up to two bands based on the DCI signaling or the MAC CE signaling without requiring RRC reconfiguration”. See remarks pp. 7-9. More specifically that Rastegardoost in at least ¶¶297-98 and ¶¶322-53 requires RRC configuration for switching.
The examiner disagrees. Claim 1 recites “[RRC] signaling that indicates a set of cells associated with three or more bands” and that “dynamic uplink transmission switching” occurs “without RRC reconfiguration”. So it is clear that RRC reconfiguration can help select the subset of cells, but the dynamic switching can occur with only DCI or MAC CE signaling.
In ¶¶297-98, Rastegardoost teaches that RRC-based cell reconfiguration takes longer latency for switching amount carriers, not that all embodiment of this invention requires RRC-based reconfiguration. In ¶322 Rastegardoost teaches that the subset of selected carriers and cells are selected according to RRC signaling. However, in ¶¶323-31 Rastegardoost is teaching the dynamic switching between the bands and carriers, it does not require additional RRC signaling to perform the dynamic switching. In ¶349, Rastegardoost teaches that the scheduled switching between carrier pairs can occur through DCI or MAC-CE signaling. As result, Rastegardoost teaches that the dynamic switching between selected carriers and cells can be signaled without RRC reconfiguration.
Applicant argues that Rastegardoost in view of MolavianJazi does not explicitly indicate “wherein, in response to the selected subset of cells not including a cell on which a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission has been scheduled according to the DCI signaling, the user device performs operations comprising at least one of: (i) determining that an error has occurred in scheduling; (ii) omitting the scheduled PUSCH transmission; or (iii) handling the scheduled PUSCH transmission according to a priority rule such that a higher-priority PUSCH is transmitted and a lower-priority PUSCH is omitted.” See remarks pp. 9-10. This argument is persuasive. However, a new grounds of rejection has been provided and is described below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-10, 11-12, 14-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “(ii) omitting the scheduled PUSCH transmission”. Applicant’s specification recites dropping or cancelling PUSCH when the scheduled sell is not selected (see ¶95). Dropping or cancelling a scheduled transmission can be a form of omitting a scheduled transmission, however there are embodiments or situations where omitting a scheduled transmission have a different broader scope than purely dropping or cancelling the PUSCH. There is no evidence that that applicant possessed the full scope of “omitting PUSCH transmissions” as claimed when the original specification was filed. As result, the specification lacks written description for the scope of claim 1.
Claim 19 recites the same limitation as claim 1 and lacks written descriptions for the same rationale as claim 1.
Claims 4-10, 11-12, 14-18, and 21 are dependent from claims 1 and 19. They are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1 and 19 because they inherit the same claim language and lack of written description issue as claims 1 and 19.
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 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 10-12, and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastegardoost et al. (US 2024/0250799 hereinafter “Rastegardoost”) in view of Bagheri et al (US 2023/0189255, hereinafter "Bagheri").
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Rastegardoost teaches a method of wireless communication, comprising:
receiving, by a user device, a radio resource control (RRC) signaling that indicates a set of cells associated with three or more bands (¶322, ¶325, wherein the UE received RRC configurations regarding a set of cells each having different frequency bands, wherein there can be 3+ bands);
receiving, by the user device, a downlink control information (DCI) signaling or a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) signaling for a dynamic uplink transmission switching operation to select a subset of cells within up to two bands out of the set of cells and up to two bands out of the three or more bands (¶322, ¶352, ¶373, wherein the UE receives TX switching configurations for multiple carriers each (at least two) each have a band (so at least two bands); and
performing, by the user device, a transmission on one or more cells within the selected subset of cells while performing the dynamic uplink transmission switching operation within the up to two bands based on the DCI signaling or the MAC CE signaling without requiring RRC reconfiguration (¶322, ¶349, ¶352, ¶373, wherein the UE receives TX switching configurations for multiple carriers each (at least two) each have a band (so at least two bands, using on DCI signaling or MAC-CE signaling).
However Rastegardoost does not explicitly indicate “wherein, in response to the selected subset of cells not including a cell on which a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission has been scheduled according to the DCI signaling, the user device performs operations comprising at least one of: (i) determining that an error has occurred in scheduling; (ii) omitting the scheduled PUSCH transmission; or (iii) handling the scheduled PUSCH transmission according to a priority rule such that a higher-priority PUSCH is transmitted and a lower-priority PUSCH is omitted.”
Bagheri teaches of using DCI signaling to switch transmissions between different sets of resources (see Fig 3, elements 320 and 340), wherein when there is a PUSCH transmission that was scheduled in a first of resources that is not present in a second set of resources, the transmission can be cancelled (omitted) under certain circumstances such as when there is a conflict in resources and the PUSCH is low priority (see ¶74, ¶¶76-77).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was made to use Bagheri’s suggestion of handling PUSCH transmissions scheduled on a prior DCI signaling (and not included in the new schedule) by just dropping or cancelling the PUSCH when it is lower priority to a new higher priority scheduled transmission. This would improve Rastegardoost’s system of dynamic switching been two carriers to ensure when a switch occurs the higher priority transmissions are scheduled over lower priority prior scheduled PUSCH transmissions.
Regarding claim 4, Rastegardoost teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the set of cells within the three or more bands include a primary cell and secondary cells (SCells) (¶144, wherein a carrier group includes a PCell, and SCells).
Regarding claim 5, Rastegardoost teaches the method of claim 4, wherein, in response to the selected subset of cells not including in a case that the primary cell is not included in the selected subset of cells, a new primary cell is determined by: a cell with a lowest index in the selected subset of cells; or an independent indication together with the cell selection signaling (¶375, wherein the UE activates the first anchor with the lowest cell index).
Regarding claim 6, Rastegardoost teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the DCI signaling includes a group common downlink control information (DCI) or a user equipment (UE)-specific DCI (DCI signaling is an alternative claim from the CE signaling, which is mapped in claim 1, see also ¶206 which teaches common DCI formats and user specific DCI formats).
Regarding claim 8, Rastegardoost teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the UE-specific DCI includes a field for cell selection (DCI signaling is an alternative claim from the CE signaling, which is mapped in claim 1, see also ¶¶206-07 which teaches common DCI formats and user specific DCI formats, see also ¶¶340-48).
Regarding claim 10, Rastegardoost teaches the method of claim 8, wherein, in response to the selected subset of cells including in a case that a PUSCH scheduled on a cell according to the UE-specific DCI is included in the selected subset of cells (¶¶206-207, wherein schedule time is given using user specific DCI signaling), a selection time for the cell selection is included in: a minimum time that is required for UE PUSCH preparation and is different from a time for uplink transmission switching; or the time for uplink transmission switching (¶272, wherein the scheduling needs to take in account the switching gap, which is the period of time needed for the UE to prepare to send uplink data over a different carrier).
Regarding claim 11, Rastegardoost teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the UE-specific DCI used for the cell selection is used with no uplink shared channel (UL-SCH) transmission (DCI signaling is an alternative claim from the CE signaling, which is mapped in claim 1, see also ¶¶206-07 which teaches common DCI formats and user specific DCI formats, see also ¶¶340-48).
Regarding claim 12, Rastegardoost teaches the method of claim 6, wherein an indication of one or more bit fields for the cell selection in the group common DCI or the UE-specific DCI includes at least one of: using a bitmap to indicate the selected subset of cells such that each bit corresponds to a cell in the set of cells; using N bits to indicate the selected subset of cells, where N is a positive integer; or using a bitmap to indicate the selected subset of cells such that each bit corresponds to a group of cells in the set of cells (DCI signaling is an alternative claim from the CE signaling, which is mapped in claim 1, see also ¶¶206-07 which teaches common DCI formats and user specific DCI formats, see also ¶¶142 and 346).
Regarding claim 14, Rastegardoost teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the MAC CE is an independent MAC CE for cell selection (MAC CE signaling is claimed alternatively from DCI signaling, Rastegardoost teaches DCI format signal in ¶321, see also ¶86 and ¶142).
Regarding claim 15, Rastegardoost teaches the method of claim 14, wherein a cell indicated by the independent MAC CE for cell selection is not overridden by a MAC CE for SCell activation (MAC CE signaling is claimed alternatively from DCI signaling, Rastegardoost teaches DCI format signal in ¶321, see also ¶86 and ¶142).
Regarding claim 16, Rastegardoost teaches the method of claim 14, wherein a cell indicated by the independent MAC CE for cell selection is overridden by [[the]] a MAC CE for SCell activation (MAC CE signaling is claimed alternatively from DCI signaling, Rastegardoost teaches DCI format signal in ¶321, see also ¶86 and ¶142).
Regarding claim 17, Rastegardoost teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a MAC CE for SCell activation is used for the cell selection and includes at least one of: using a reserved bit to indicate whether the MAC CE is used for SCell activation orcell selection; the MAC CE for SCell activation includes two bits for each cell to indicate up to four different states of each cell; or the SCells activated by the MAC CE for SCell activation are the selected subset of cells (¶142, wherein a MAC CE received by the UE is used for cell selection and indicating which SCell are activated or deactivated).
Regarding claim 18, Rastegardoost teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the set of cells comprise one or more cells with a supplementary uplink (SUL), and the subset of cells comprise at most one cell with SUL (¶227 and ¶¶262-263 and ¶¶307-309, wherein the UE can be configured to perform UL Tx switching on supplemental uplinks over multiple carriers with different bands).
Regarding claim 21, Rastegardoost teaches the user device apparatus of claim 19, wherein the transmission on one or more cells within the selected subset of cells includes performing an uplink transmission switching operation on uplink carriers within the up to two bands (¶227 and ¶¶262-263 and ¶¶307-309, wherein the UE can be configured to perform UL Tx switching on supplemental uplinks over multiple carriers with different bands).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastegardoost in view of Bagheri , and in further view of MolavianJazi et al. (US 2024/0422772, herewinafter “MolavinaJazi”).
Regarding claim 7, Rastegardoost teaches the method of claim 6.
Rastegardoost does not explicitly indicate wherein the cell selection is indicated in the group common DCI by at least one of: an indication for selection of a subset of cells for a group of UEs; multiple indication fields for selection of a subset of cells for a group of UEs and each indication field for a UE; or using SCell dormancy indication for cell selection.
MolavinaJazi teaches cross carrier scheduling system wherein a UE performs the cell selection is indicated in the group common DCI by at least one of: multiple indication fields for selection of a subset of cells for a group of UEs and each indication field for a UE (¶135 wherein cell selection can be performed using a group common DCI signaling and the DCI format including information providing an indication field for a UE).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to use MolavinaJazi’s suggestion of group DCI signaling including having a field for UE’s subset of the cell selection in Rastgardoost’s sytem, the combination would allow multiple UE’s to be scheduled using a single DCI group signal.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al (US 2020/0314820) because it discloses dropping PUSCH signals which conflict with other scheduled PUSCH transmissions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN T BATES whose telephone number is (571)272-3980. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9 am - 5:30 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.
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.
/KEVIN T BATES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472