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
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.
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) 34, 39, 43, 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda US 20220303880 in view of Dimou US 20210105705
34. A method, in a scheduling node of a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
configuring each of a plurality of wireless devices with two or more respective search space configurations for monitoring for scheduling messages (Takeda: [0057, 0076] search space sets may include common search space sets configured for sending control information to multiple UEs 115),
the two or more respective search space configurations for each wireless device differing with respect to at least one of (a) [[sparsity]] in time of scheduling occasions, (b) time offset of scheduling occasions, and (c) duration of scheduling occasions (Takeda: [0079, 0087] the base station may provide a trigger for search space set group switching between different groups of search space sets, which may provide for cross-carrier scheduling from SCell/sSCell 510 to PCell/PSCell 505 …. the search space set group(s) of the scheduling cells for PCell/PSCell 505 after a certain time period (e.g., a certain number of slots)); and
for each of one or more of the wireless devices, activating one of the configured two or more search space configurations for the respective wireless device, based on a latency requirement and/or a throughput requirement for the respective wireless device (Takeda: [0039, 0057, 0096, 0213] search space set group switching may be performed based on one or more activated or dormant bandwidth parts (BWPs)).
Takeda merely discloses the term “sparsity in time of scheduling occasions”
Dimou teaches the term sparsity in time of scheduling occasions (Dimou: [0072] sparse monitoring occasions).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention as recited above into Takeda’s invention in order to (to reserve less resources) to avoid collision between resources dynamically signaled for one UE and resources used to provide a burst of traffic for other UEs [0055], as taught by Dimou.
39. The method of claim 34, wherein the search space configurations assigned to the plurality of wireless devices include configurations having a first sparsity in time of scheduling occasions and configurations having a second sparsity in time of scheduling occasions, the first sparsity being less than the second sparsity (Dimou: fig. 4 [0072] sparse monitoring occasions).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention as recited above into Takeda’s invention in order to (to reserve less resources) to avoid collision between resources dynamically signaled for one UE and resources used to provide a burst of traffic for other UEs [0055], as taught by Dimou.
43. The method of claim 34, wherein the method comprises, for each of one or more of the wireless devices, selecting at least one search space configuration to be assigned to the wireless device from available search space configurations, based on one or more of any of: a maximum acceptable latency for each of one or more services provided to the wireless devices;
a minimum throughput requirement for each of one or more services provided to the wireless device; an expected loading of one or more scheduling occasions, in view of the selected search
space configurations; power savings needs for the wireless device (Dimou: fig. 4 [0049-0055]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention as recited above into Takeda’s invention in order to (to reserve less resources) to avoid collision between resources dynamically signaled for one UE and resources used to provide a burst of traffic for other UEs [0055], as taught by Dimou.
46. The method of claim 34, wherein the method comprises changing a search space configuration for one or more wireless devices, based on one or more of any of: a change in loading for one or more scheduling occasions; and a change in a number of UEs served by the network node (Dimou: [0049-0056]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention as recited above into Takeda’s invention in order to (to reserve less resources) to avoid collision between resources dynamically signaled for one UE and resources used to provide a burst of traffic for other UEs [0055], as taught by Dimou.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 35-38, 40-42, 44-45, 47 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.
Regarding claims 48-59, the independent claim and each dependent claim are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 34-47, where the difference used is a “network node” with a processor and a memory (Takeda: Referring to FIG. 16, the wireless device 1600 includes a processor 1640, a memory 1635) and the wordings of the claims were interchanged within the claim itself or some of the claims were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claims arid interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to these claims. Therefore, these claims were rejected/objected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (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.
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) 34, 39, 43, 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda US 20220303880 in view of Xu RU 2767192 C1
34. A method, in a scheduling node of a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
configuring each of a plurality of wireless devices with two or more respective search space configurations for monitoring for scheduling messages (Takeda: [0057, 0076] search space sets may include common search space sets configured for sending control information to multiple UEs 115),
the two or more respective search space configurations for each wireless device differing with respect to at least one of (a) sparsity in time of scheduling occasions, (b) time [[offset]] of scheduling occasions, and (c) duration of scheduling occasions (Takeda: [0079, 0087] the base station may provide a trigger for search space set group switching between different groups of search space sets, which may provide for cross-carrier scheduling from SCell/sSCell 510 to PCell/PSCell 505 …. the search space set group(s) of the scheduling cells for PCell/PSCell 505 after a certain time period (e.g., a certain number of slots)); and
for each of one or more of the wireless devices, activating one of the configured two or more search space configurations for the respective wireless device, based on a latency requirement and/or a throughput requirement for the respective wireless device (Takeda: [0039, 0057, 0096, 0213] search space set group switching may be performed based on one or more activated or dormant bandwidth parts (BWPs)).
Takeda merely discloses the term “offset”
Xu teaches the term offset (Xu: [0054, 0085, 0090-0093] interval cycle and cycle offset)
Xu further teaches activating one of the configured two or more search space configurations for the respective wireless device, based on a latency requirement and/or a throughput requirement for the respective wireless device (Xu: [0085] Under the condition of relatively low traffic of the terminal device or lack of service for a short time, the second configuration of the PDCCH search space can be activated)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention as recited above into Takeda’s invention in order to so that large power savings can be achieved for the terminal device, as taught by Xu.
39. The method of claim 34, wherein the search space configurations assigned to the plurality of wireless devices include configurations having a first sparsity in time of scheduling occasions and configurations having a second sparsity in time of scheduling occasions, the first sparsity being less than the second sparsity (Xu: [0085]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention as recited above into Takeda’s invention in order to so that large power savings can be achieved for the terminal device, as taught by Xu.
43. The method of claim 34, wherein the method comprises, for each of one or more of the wireless devices, selecting at least one search space configuration to be assigned to the wireless device from available search space configurations, based on one or more of any of: a maximum acceptable latency for each of one or more services provided to the wireless devices;
a minimum throughput requirement for each of one or more services provided to the wireless device; an expected loading of one or more scheduling occasions, in view of the selected search
space configurations; power savings needs for the wireless device (Xu: [0085]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention as recited above into Takeda’s invention in order to so that large power savings can be achieved for the terminal device, as taught by Xu.
46. The method of claim 34, wherein the method comprises changing a search space configuration for one or more wireless devices, based on one or more of any of: a change in loading for one or more scheduling occasions; and a change in a number of UEs served by the network node (Xu: [0085]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention as recited above into Takeda’s invention in order to so that large power savings can be achieved for the terminal device, as taught by Xu.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 35-38, 40-42, 44-45, 47 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.
Regarding claims 48-59, the independent claim and each dependent claim are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 34-47, where the difference used is a “network node” with a processor and a memory (Takeda: Referring to FIG. 16, the wireless device 1600 includes a processor 1640, a memory 1635) and the wordings of the claims were interchanged within the claim itself or some of the claims were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claims arid interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to these claims. Therefore, these claims were rejected/objected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (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.
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) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda US 20220303880 in view of Takeda US 20220109597 (hereinafter as Takeda2)
34. A method, in a scheduling node of a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
configuring each of a plurality of wireless devices with two or more respective search space configurations for monitoring for scheduling messages (Takeda: [0057, 0076] search space sets may include common search space sets configured for sending control information to multiple UEs 115),
the two or more respective search space configurations for each wireless device differing with respect to at least one of (a) sparsity in time of scheduling occasions, (b) time [[offset]] of scheduling occasions, and (c) duration of scheduling occasions (Takeda: [0079, 0087] the base station may provide a trigger for search space set group switching between different groups of search space sets, which may provide for cross-carrier scheduling from SCell/sSCell 510 to PCell/PSCell 505 …. the search space set group(s) of the scheduling cells for PCell/PSCell 505 after a certain time period (e.g., a certain number of slots)); and
for each of one or more of the wireless devices, activating one of the configured two or more search space configurations for the respective wireless device, based on a latency requirement and/or a throughput requirement for the respective wireless device (Takeda: [0039, 0057, 0096, 0213] search space set group switching may be performed based on one or more activated or dormant bandwidth parts (BWPs)).
Takeda merely discloses the term “offset”
Takeda2 teaches the term offset (Takeda2: [0072] monitoring parameters, such as monitoring occasion periodicity, a duration of the monitoring occasions, an offset of the monitoring occasions, or any other suitable monitoring parameter)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention as recited above into Takeda’s invention in order to monitoring and decoding configurations for cross-carrier scheduling in a carrier aggregation system [0002], as taught by Takeda2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sulaiman Nooristany whose telephone number is (571) 270-1929. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 to 5. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jeffrey Rutkowski, can be reached on (571) 270-1215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SULAIMAN NOORISTANY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415