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 INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112 (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112 (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112, 6th except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112, 6th except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The limitation of claim 28 that recites “means for receiving” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (sixth paragraph) because it uses a generic placeholder "means for" couple with the functional language “receiving” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structure modifier. A review of the specification shows that transmit antenna (see [0044] USPN 20240314750) is associated with this feature.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-12, 14, 17-21, 23, 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) as being anticipated by Pan et al (WO2019099661A1).
Regarding claim 1, Pan discloses
a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: (WTRU, FIG. 1B #102, comprising [0044-0047]
a memory; one or more processors coupled to the memory, configured to: (memory, FIG. 1B #130 132, coupled to processor, FIG. 1B #118, and configured to [0044-0047], FIG. 11
receive a first signal in a first slot, wherein the first slot corresponds to a physical downlink control channel monitoring in a second slot with a defined characteristic (WTRU receives SSB in first slot corresponding to paging CORESET/PO indicating when to wake up for PDCCH monitoring/paging CORESET in another slot/second slot/cross slot scheduling with CORESET configuration predefined [0091, 0093, 0100, 0095, 0097, 0140], Abstract, FIGs. 5, 11, 14-17
receive a second signal in a third slot, wherein the third slot is based at least in part on the second slot, the defined characteristic, and a shift value (NR-PDSCH slot where paging CORESET/PDCCH monitoring occasion in same/different slot based on information in second slot, time offset, and CORESET configuration [0093, 0097, 0140, 0144, 0155], FIGs. 5, 14-17.
Claim 10 is rejected based on similar ground(s) provided in rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, Pan discloses
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions for wireless communication, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a user equipment (UE), cause the UE to: (memory, FIG. 1B #130 #132, comprising computer program executed by processor, FIG. 1B #118, to perform [0215, 0044, 0045]
receive a first signal in a first slot, wherein the first slot corresponds to a physical downlink control channel monitoring in a second slot with a defined characteristic (WTRU receives SSB in first slot corresponding to paging CORESET/PO indicating when to wake up for PDCCH monitoring/paging CORESET in another slot/second slot/cross slot scheduling with CORESET configuration predefined [0091, 0093, 0100, 0095, 0097, 0140], Abstract, FIGs. 5, 11, 14-17
receive a second signal in a third slot, wherein the third slot is based at least in part on the second slot, the defined characteristic, and a shift value (NR-PDSCH slot where paging CORESET/PDCCH monitoring occasion in same/different slot based on information in second slot, time offset, and CORESET configuration [0093, 0097, 0140, 0144, 0155], FIGs. 5, 14-17.
Regarding claim 28, Pan discloses
An apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: (WTRU, FIG. 1B #102, comprising [0044-0047]
means for (transceiver, FIG. 1B #120,) receiving a first signal in a first slot, wherein the first slot corresponds to a physical downlink control channel monitoring occasion in a second slot with a defined characteristic; and (receives SSB in first slot corresponding to paging CORESET/PO indicating when to wake up for PDCCH monitoring/paging CORESET in another slot/second slot/cross slot scheduling with CORESET configuration predefined [0091, 0093, 0100, 0095, 0097, 0140], Abstract, FIGs. 5, 11, 14-17
means for (transceiver, FIG. 1B #120,) receiving a second signal in a third slot, wherein the third slot is based at least in part on the second slot, the defined characteristic, and a shift value (NR-PDSCH slot where paging CORESET/PDCCH monitoring occasion in same/different slot based on information in second slot, time offset, and CORESET configuration [0093, 0097, 0140, 0144, 0155], FIGs. 5, 14-17.
Regarding claims 2, 11, 20, 29, Pan discloses “wherein the first slot is associated with a synchronization signal block beam and the physical downlink control channel monitoring occasion in the second slot corresponds to the synchronization signal block beam” first slot associated with SSB beam/paging CORESET are QCL-linked [0090, 0091], Abstract, FIGs. 5, 14-17.
Regarding claims 3, 12, 21, 30, Pan discloses “wherein the first signal is associated with a synchronization signal block beam and the second signal is a page associated with the synchronization signal block beam” first signal being SSB and second signal being paging CORESET/PDCCH [0140-0144], Abstract, FIGs. 11, 14-17.
Regarding claims 5, 14, 23, Pan discloses “wherein the third slot is not associated with the defined characteristic” cross slot scheduling for third slot/PDSCH not associated with CORESET configuration [0093].
Regarding claims 8, 17, 26, Pan discloses “wherein the defined characteristic includes a downlink decoding resource characteristic” CORESET configuration used to decode downlink channels (Abstract).
Regarding claims 9, 18, 27, Pan discloses “wherein the third slot is based at least in part on a serving beam index” WTRU determines beam, time, frequency relationship based on SSB index which determines CORESET slot and PDSCH slot [0109, 0093, 0094], FIGs. 14-17.
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.
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.
Claims 4, 13, 22, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Li et al (USPN 20200287678).
Regarding claims 4, 13, 22 Pan does not expressly disclose “wherein the defined characteristic includes at least one of a quantity of downlink symbols”
Li discloses number of OFDM symbols occupied by CORESET/downlink symbols used to schedule downlink resources [0059-0061, 0003], FIGs. 2A-2E.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “wherein the defined characteristic includes at least one of a quantity of downlink symbols” as taught by Li into Pan’s system with the motivation to use number of downlink symbols in CORESET for scheduling resources such as a slot (Li, paragraph [0059-0061, 0003], FIGs. 2A-2E).
Claims 6, 15, 24, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Tenny et al (USPN 20180077680).
Regarding claims 6, 15, 24, Pan does not expressly disclose “wherein the defined characteristic includes a signal to noise ratio characteristic”
Tenny discloses UE’s measurement of most favorable beam using signal to noise ratio to receive paging in slot [0039, 0051-0054], FIG. 6.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “wherein the defined characteristic includes a signal to noise ratio characteristic” as taught by Tenny into Pan’s system with the motivation to use SNR to select which beam/slot UE monitors (Tenny, paragraph [0039, 0051-0054], FIG. 6).
Claims 7, 16, 25, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Kong et al (USPN 10,979,979).
Regarding claims 7, 16, 25, Pan does not expressly disclose “wherein the third slot is based at least in part on a signal to noise ratio of a synchronization signal block beam”
Kong discloses UE performs measurement of SSB using SNR/SNIR to identify paging timing/occasion and eventual PDSCH slot (column 2 lines 13-20, column 7 lines 10-24, column 12 lines 19-35, column 10 line 33- column 11 line 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “wherein the third slot is based at least in part on a signal to noise ratio of a synchronization signal block beam” as taught by Kong into Pan’s system with the motivation to measure SSBs for paging occasion and PDSCH decoding (Kong, (column 2 lines 13-20, column 7 lines 10-24, column 12 lines 19-35, column 10 line 33- column 11 line 21).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liao et al (WO2021185269A1) FIG. 5
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F campus 10:30-5pm, telework 6pm-8pm| Telework count days.
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, Ian N Moore can be reached at (571)272-3085. 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.
/THAI NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469