DETAILED ACTION
Response to Remark
This communication is considered fully responsive to the amendment filed on 05/15/26.
No claims have been amended.
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 of this title, 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, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (US 2021/0227544, “Luo”) in view of Huang et al. (US 2024/0064671, “Huang”).
Regarding claim 1, Luo discloses a guard symbol configuration method, comprising:
- sending, by a first node, a first medium access control control element (MAC CE) to a second node, wherein the first MAC CE indicates a number of guard symbols used in a first subcarrier spacing (See 1310 or 1312 Fig.13,
PNG
media_image1.png
328
767
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See ¶.115, the child IAB node may generate and transmit the guard symbols desired message to the parent IAB node requesting the parent IAB node provide the determined number of guard symbols at transitions between transmission/reception by the MT unit of the child IAB node and transmission/reception by the DU of the child IAB node. In some examples, the guard symbols desired message may be transmitted within a MAC-CE; See 1310 Fig.13 and ¶.134, the child IAB node may generate and transmit an inter-slot guard symbols desired message to the parent IAB node requesting the parent IAB node provide the determined number of inter-slot guard symbols at slot boundary transitions between transmission/reception by the MT unit of the child IAB node and transmission/reception by the DU of the child IAB node. The child IAB node may further include an SCS (Sub-Carrier Spacing) requested for the inter-slot guard symbols. In some examples, the requested SCS is the second SCS utilized by the child IAB node for communication on the respective second links with child nodes of the child IAB node. In some examples, the inter-slot guard symbols desired message, together with the requested SCS, may be transmitted within a MAC-CE).
Luo discloses the method of sending the first MAC CE and the second MAC CE for inter-slot GS provided message with SCS and intra-slot GS provided message with SCS, respectively (See Fig.13), but does not explicitly disclose what Huang discloses,
- sending, by the first node, a second MAC CE to the second node (Luo and Huang disclose the method of sending the second MAC CE), wherein the first MAC CE and the second MAC CE are to be jointly used to determine a number of guard symbols used or expected to be used in a second subcarrier spacing (Huang, See 1120 Fig.11,
PNG
media_image2.png
205
451
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See ¶.235, optionally, the IAB node 902-2 may send a signal of updating the sets of desired numbers of guard symbols to the parent IAB node 902-1 (step 1120). Optionally, the parent IAB node 902-1 may send a signal of updating the sets of provided numbers of guard symbols to the IAB node 902-2 (step 1122); See ¶.236, the switching or transition can be made from one slot (e.g., slot (k−1)) to the next slot (e.g., slot k). In one embodiment, each set of desired numbers of guard symbols per each timing switching group (Group-1 to Group-4) contains at least 8 non-negative values which represent the number of guard symbols corresponding to a plurality of timing alignment cases, as illustrated in FIG. 10; See Fig.8B,
PNG
media_image3.png
544
520
media_image3.png
Greyscale
See ¶.34, a new parameter Guard Symbol-SCS (Sub-Carrier Spacing) is also provided which indicates the reference SCS (FR1: {15 kHz, 30 kHz, 60 kHz}, FR2: {60 kHz, 120 kHz}) to be used for the guard symbols; See ¶.54-55, sub-carrier spacing (SCS): This field indicates the subcarrier spacing used as reference for the guard spacing. The length of this field is 2bits. The values for the SCS field are shown in Table 6.1.3.22-2; [0055] Number of Guard Symbols (NmbGS): This field indicates the number of guard symbols for the switching scenario shown in Table 5.18.19-1. The number of guard symbols can take values within the range of 0 . . . 4. Higher values 5-7 are reserved; See ¶.138, each MAC CE of the one or more MAC CEs comprises one or more of sub-carrier spacing, SCS, bits to indicate that the one or more sets of desired numbers of guard symbols correspond to one or more of Group-2, Group-3, or Group-4, respectively; Examiner’s Note: the updated procedure is associated with the number of guard symbols in the first MAC CE and the second MAC CE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “the first MAC CE and the second MAC CE are to be jointly used to determine a number of guard symbols used or expected to be used in a second subcarrier spacing” as taught by Huang into the system of Luo, so that it provides a way of receiving updated the sets of provided number of guard symbols from the parent IAB node (Huang, See ¶.235) and indicating new parameter guard symbol sub-carrier spacing to be used for the updated guard symbols (Huang, See ¶.34).
Regarding claim 3, Luo discloses “the first node comprises an integrated access and backhaul mobile terminal (IAB MT), and the second node comprises an integrated access and backhaul distributed unit (IAB DU) or a donor distributed unit (DU); or the first node comprises an IAB DU or a donor DU, and the second node comprises an IAB MT (See 1302 & 1304 Fig.13, child IAB-MT and parent IAB-DU).”
Regarding claim 5, Luo do not explicitly disclose what Huang discloses “the second MAC CE comprises a subcarrier spacing (SCS) field, and a value of the SCS field indicates the second subcarrier spacing (Huang, See Fig.8B and ¶.34, SCS value).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Luo does not explicitly disclose what Huang discloses “a reserved bit in the first MAC CE indicates that the first MAC CE is a first-type MAC CE, and a reserved bit in the second MAC CE indicates that the second MAC CE is a second-type MAC CE (Huang, See ¶.137, each MAC CE of the one or more MAC CEs comprises a reserved bit to indicate that one of the two or more timing switching groups).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, it is a guard symbol configuration method claim corresponding to the claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claims 11, 13, and 15, they are claims corresponding to claims 3, 4, & 7, respectively and are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claims.
Regarding claim 17, it is an apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim 1, except the limitation “a transceiver (See Fig.15)” and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claim 19, it is a claim corresponding to the claim 3 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Claims 4, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo in view of Huang and further in view of Harada et al. (US 2023/0292150, “Harada”).
Regarding claim 4, Huang discloses “the first subcarrier spacing is 15 kHz, 30 kHz, 60 kHz, or 120 kHz (Huang, See ¶.34), but Luo and Huang do not explicitly disclose what Harada discloses “the second subcarrier spacing is 480 kHz or 960 kHz (Harada, See Fig.3 and ¶.151, an SCS of 960 kHz and an SCS of 480 kHz).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply “the second subcarrier spacing is 480 kHz or 960 kHz” as taught by Harada into the system of Luo and Huang, so that it provides a way of satisfying the required application of a wider SCS (Harada, See ¶.37).
Regarding claims 12 and 20, they are claims corresponding to claims 4 & 4, respectively and are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claims.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo in view of Huang and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2023/0083274, “Lee”).
Regarding claim 8, Luo and Huang do not explicitly disclose what Lee discloses “mapping, by the first node, the first MAC CE to a first logical channel, and mapping the second MAC CE to a second logical channel, wherein the first MAC CE mapped to the first logical channel is a first-type MAC CE, and the second MAC CE mapped to the second logical channel is a second-type MAC CE; the sending the first MAC CE comprises: sending, by the first node, the first MAC CE to the second node through the first logical channel; and the sending the second MAC CE comprises: sending, by the first node, the second MAC CE to the second node through the second logical channel (Lee, ¶.510, the highest priority of logical channels and MAC CE(s) that can be mapped to the configured grant in logical channel prioritization; Examiner’s Note: the priority is used for a different type of MAC CE).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply “mapping, by the first node, the first MAC CE to a first logical channel, and mapping the second MAC CE to a second logical channel, wherein the first MAC CE mapped to the first logical channel is a first-type MAC CE, and the second MAC CE mapped to the second logical channel is a second-type MAC CE; the sending the first MAC CE comprises: sending, by the first node, the first MAC CE to the second node through the first logical channel; and the sending the second MAC CE comprises: sending, by the first node, the second MAC CE to the second node through the second logical channel” as taught by Lee into the system of Luo and Huang, so that it provides a way of determining the priority of each configured grant by itself based on the highest priority of logical channels and a MAC CE carried in a MAC PDU over the configured grant (Lee, See ¶.479).
Regarding claim 16, it is a claim corresponding to the claim 8 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6, 10, 14, and 18 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 filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At pages 9-11, with respect to claim 1, applicant argues that any combination of Luo and Huang fail to disclose “sending, by the first node, a second MAC CE to the second node, wherein the first MAC CE and the second MAC CE are to be jointly used to determine a number of guard symbols used or expected to be used in a second subcarrier spacing” by asserting that:
“Luo describes sending an inter-slot guard symbols desired message and an intra-slot guard symbols desired message as separate MAC-CEs (see Luo, paras. [0134]-[0135]). However, these two MAC-CEs in Luo serve different and independent purposes. One MAC-CE is for inter-slot transitions and one MAC-CE is for intra-slot transitions. Luo states that the child IAB node "may generate and transmit an inter-slot guard symbols desired message to the parent IAB node" at step 1310 (see Luo, para. [0134]) and separately "may generate and transmit an intra-slot guard symbols desired message to the parent IAB node" at step 1312 (see Luo, para. [0135]). The two MAC-CEs discussed in Luo are not "jointly used to determine a number of guard symbols used or expected to be used in a second subcarrier spacing." Rather, each MAC-CE independently indicates a number of guard symbols for its respective transition type (inter-slot or intra-slot). Luo further describes that the parent IAB node may include an SCS provided for the inter- slot guard symbols within the MAC-CE (see Luo, para. [0138]), but this merely associates an SCS with a single guard symbols message. One of ordinary skill would recognize that a parent IAB node discussed as including an SCS provided for the inter-slot guard symbols within the MAC- CE does not describe two MAC CEs being jointly used to determine guard symbols for a second subcarrier spacing. Huang does not make up for the above-identified deficiency in Luo. Huang describes that "the IAB node 902-2 may send a signal of updating the sets of desired numbers of guard symbols to the parent IAB node 902-1" and that "the parent IAB node 902-1 may send a signal of updating the sets of provided numbers of guard symbols to the IAB node 902- 2" (see Huang, para. [0235]). Huang also describes that each MAC CE of the one or more MAC CEs "comprises one or more of sub-carrier spacing, SCS, bits to indicate that the one or more sets of desired numbers of guard symbols correspond to one or more of Group-2, Group-3, or Group- 4, respectively" (see Huang, para. [0138]). However, Huang's updating procedure merely replaces or modifies guard symbol values for different timing switching groups. Huang does not describe combining values from two MAC CEs to jointly determine guard symbols for a second subcarrier spacing. The Office's assertion that "the updated procedure is associated with the number of guard symbols in the first MAC CE and the second MAC CE" does not establish that the two MAC CEs are "jointly used to determine a number of guard symbols used or expected to be used in a second subcarrier spacing," as recited in claim 1. Moreover, the Examiner's assertion that "the updated procedure is associated with the number of guard symbols in the first MAC CE and the second MAC CE" is a conclusory statement that fails to articulate how the combination of Luo and Huang teaches or suggests the claimed limitation. As stated in In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), "[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." The Office has not even attempted to explain how Huang's updating of guard symbol sets for different timing switching groups teaches or suggests that two MAC CEs are "jointly used to determine a number of guard symbols used or expected to be used in a second subcarrier spacing."
In reply, the limitations “sending, by the first node, a second MAC CE to the second node, wherein the first MAC CE and the second MAC CE are to be jointly used to determine a number of guard symbols used or expected to be used in a second subcarrier spacing” explicitly read on:
¶.[0005] of Luo discloses “the method includes communicating with a second IAB node over a first link and with a set of one or more child nodes over respective second links and transmitting a guard symbols desired message requesting the second IAB node provide a number of guard symbols at a transition between a first set of resources allocated for communication between the first IAB node and the second IAB node over the first link and a second set of resources allocated for communication between the first IAB node and the set of one or more child nodes over the respective second links. The method further includes identifying a subcarrier spacing associated with the number of guard symbols.”
¶.[0039] of Luo discloses “For example, a MAC-CE transmitted from the child IAB node to the parent IAB node may include the guard symbols desired message and the requested SCS to be utilized for the guard symbols. In another example, a MAC-CE transmitted from the parent IAB node to the child IAB node may include the guard symbols provided message and the SCS associated with the provided guard symbols. In some examples, the default SCS includes the backhaul SCS of an active bandwidth part within which the parent IAB node and child IAB nodes are communicating over the first (parent) link.”
[Fig.11, item 1112] of Luo discloses that Child IAB node as a first node, sends the Intra-slot GS desired message 1112 to Parent IAB node 1104 as shown below;
PNG
media_image4.png
363
658
media_image4.png
Greyscale
¶.[0119] of Luo discloses “At 1110, the child IAB node 1102 may generate and transmit an inter-slot guard symbols desired message to the parent IAB node 1104 requesting the parent IAB node 1104 provide the determined number of inter-slot guard symbols at slot boundary transitions between transmission/reception by the MT unit of the child IAB node 1102 and transmission/reception by the DU of the child IAB node 1102. In some examples, the inter-slot guard symbols desired message may be transmitted within a medium access control-control element (MAC-CE).” [emphasis added].
¶.[0120] of Luo discloses “At 1112, the child IAB node 1102 may generate and transmit an intra-slot guard symbols desired message to the parent IAB node 1104 requesting the parent IAB node 1104 provide the determined number of intra-slot guard symbols at transitions that occur within a slot between transmission/reception by the MT unit of the child IAB node 1102 and transmission/reception by the DU of the child IAB node 1102. In some examples, the intra-slot guard symbols desired message may be transmitted within a medium access control-control element (MAC-CE). In some examples, the requested number of intra-slot guard symbols may be the same as the requested number of inter-slot guard symbols. In this example, the child IAB node 1102 may generate and transmit a single guard symbols desired message applicable to both intra-slot transitions and inter-slot transitions.” [emphasis added].
¶.[0121] of Luo discloses “At 1114 and 1116, the parent IAB node 1104 may determine the number of inter-slot guard symbols desired and the number of intra-slot guard symbols provided. For example, the parent IAB node 1104 may determine the number of inter-slot guard symbols and intra-slot guard symbols provided based on the number of inter-slot guard symbols and intra-slot guard symbols requested by the child IAB node 1102, the resource utilization by the child IAB node 1102 on the first link, the congestion on other links associated with the parent IAB node DU, the link quality of the first link, the number of child nodes served by the parent IAB node 1104, and/or other suitable factors.” [emphasis added].
¶.[0180] of Luo discloses “the first IAB node may further identify a transition between the first IAB node communicating on the first link and the first IAB node communicating on the second link as one of the intra-slot transition or the inter-slot transition using a reference subcarrier spacing. Here, the reference subcarrier spacing includes one of a first subcarrier spacing utilized for communication with the second IAB node on the first link or a second subcarrier spacing utilized for communication with the set of one or more child nodes on the respective second link.”
¶.[0186] of Luo discloses “Here, the reference subcarrier spacing includes one of a first subcarrier spacing utilized for communication with the second IAB node on the first link or a second subcarrier spacing utilized for communication with the set of one or more child nodes on the respective second links. In some examples, the reference SCS may be received with at least one of the first guard symbols provided message or the second guard symbols provided message.”
¶.[0199] of Luo discloses “here, the reference subcarrier spacing includes one of a first subcarrier spacing utilized for communication between the first IAB node and the second IAB node on the first link or a second subcarrier spacing utilized by the second IAB node for communication with the set of one or more child nodes on the respective second link. In some examples, when the guard symbols desired message includes a requested SCS (e.g., the second SCS), the reference SCS may include a maximum SCS between the first SCS and the second SCS, a minimum SCS between the first SCS and the second SCS, the first SCS, or the second SCS.”
¶.[0222] of Huang discloses “The IAB node 902-2 may send, to the parent IAB node 902-1, one or more sets of desired numbers of guard symbols for two or more timing switching groups, respectively (step 1102). Each timing switching group of the two or more timing switching groups comprises one or more timing alignment cases, and each set of desired numbers of guard symbols comprises a desired number of guard symbols for the one or more timing alignment cases comprised in the respective timing switching group of the two or more timing switching groups.
¶.[0223] of Huang discloses “Optionally, sending the one or more sets of desired numbers of guard symbols for two or more timing switching groups, respectively, to the parent IAB node 902-1 comprises sending the one or more sets of desired numbers of guard symbols for two or more timing switching groups, respectively, to the parent IAB node 902-1 via one or more MAC CEs. [emphasis added].
In other words, Child IAB node sends the first MAC CE to Parent IAB node and then sends the second MAC CE to the Parent IAB node, wherein the first and second MAC CE messages are used to determine a number of guard symbols (GS) expected to be used in a second subcarrier spacing as disclosed in the Fig.11 and the cited paragraphs of Luo and Huang by using two MAC CEs. Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jung H Park whose telephone number is 571-272-8565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 AM-3:00 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. 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.
/JUNG H PARK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights