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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 26, 27, 32, and 38-40, and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takeda US 20220046673.
Regarding claims 26, 32, and 38, Takeda teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising
instructions that, upon execution of the instructions by one or more processors of a user equipment (UE), are to cause the UE to:
identify, in a received physical downlink control channel (PDCCH), a single downlink control information (DCI) that is related to a first set of one or more physical shared channels on a first component carrier (CC) and a second set of two or more physical shared channels on a second
CC, a field of the DCI being applied to respective physical shared channels of the first set and the second set;
transmit or receive, based on the DCI, the first set of one or more physical shared channels; and
transmit or receive, based on the DCI, the second set of two or more physical shared (fig. 7, the base station 110 associated with the first serving cell may transmit a single
DCI to schedule a PDSCH communication on the first serving cell (e.g., on the first carrier) and to schedule a PDSCH
communication on the second serving cell (e.g., on the second
carrier). The UE 120 may receive the DCI based at least in part on monitoring the set of PDCCH candidates associated with the DCI in a search space, [0105], 0116]).
Regarding claims 27, 39, the first set or second set include a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) or a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (PDSCH, [0105], 0116]).
Regarding claim 40, the first set or second set include a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (fig. 6-8).
Regarding claim 43, a field of the DCI is applied to respective physical shared channels of the first set and
the second set ([0105], 0116]).
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.
Claim(s) 28, 29, 41, 42 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Takeda as applied to claims 26, 38 above, and further in view of Li US 20230199735.
Regarding claims 28, 41, the combination is silent on the second set of two or more physical shared channels are transmitted or received in consecutive slots.
Li teaches a set of two or more physical shared channels are transmitted or received in consecutive slots ([0168]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Takeda by the second set of two or more physical shared channels are transmitted or received in consecutive slots, as suggested by Li. This modification would benefit the system by efficiently using time domain resources for transmitting the PUSCH.
Regarding claim 29, 42, the second set of two or more physical shared channels are transmitted or received in non- consecutive slots (Li: [0168]).
Claim(s) 31, 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda as applied to claims 26, 38 above, and further in view of Babaei US 20220210800.
Regarding claims 31, 44, Takeda is silent on a first field of the DCI is applied to the first set and a second field of the DCI is applied to the second set.
Babaei teaches a first field of the DCI is applied to the first set and a second field of the DCI is applied to the second set (In response to the downlink signaling indicating that the DCI is used for multi-cell scheduling (e.g., scheduling a plurality of TBs/physical channels (e.g., PDSCHs/PUSCHs) via a plurality of cell cell), the wireless device may use a value of the first field to determine first scheduling information for a first TB/physical channel (e.g., PDSCH/PUSCH) on a first cell and second scheduling information for a second TB/physical channel (e.g., PDSCH/PUSCH) on a second cell, [0295]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Takeda by a first field of the DCI is applied to the first set and a second field of the DCI is applied to the second set, as shown by Babaei. This modification would benefit the system by providing a proven, reliable method assigning the physical shared channels.
Claim(s) 33 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Bang US 20210329608.
Regarding claim 33, Takeda is silent on the DCI includes a first indication of a first frequency domain resource allocation (FDRA) that is to be applied to the first set.
Bang teaches the DCI includes a first indication of a first frequency domain resource allocation (FDRA) that is to be applied to the first set ([0261]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Takeda by the DCI includes a first indication of a first frequency domain resource allocation (FDRA) that is to be applied to the first set, as shown by Bang. This modification would benefit the system by providing a proven, reliable method for indicating frequency domain resource allocation.
Regarding claim 35 the DCI includes a second indication of a second FDRA that is to be applied to the second set. This is an obvious implementation of Bang.
Claim(s) 36, 37 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Muruganathan US 20220216944.
Regarding claim 36, Takeda is silent on the DCI includes respective indications of respective time domain resource allocations (TDRAs) that are to be applied to respective physical shared channels of the first set and the second set.
Muruganathan teaches the DCI includes respective indications of respective time domain resource allocations (TDRAs) that are to be applied to respective physical shared channels of the first set and the second set (the TDRA field in the DCI may contain a joint encoding of the TDRA for scheduling, multiple mini-slots, for example multiple PDSCH Type B scheduling, [0157]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Takeda by the DCI includes respective indications of respective time domain resource allocations (TDRAs) that are to be applied to respective physical shared channels of the first set and the second set, as shown by Muruganathan. This modification would benefit the system by providing a proven, reliable method PDSCH scheduling.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30 and 34 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD B ABELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30.
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.
/RONALD B ABELSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights