Detail Action
This office action is a response to an amendment submitted on 05/18/2026.
Claims 1- 20 are pending for examination.
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 .
Drawings
The Examiner contends that the drawings submitted on 03/19/2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 7-8, 14 and 20 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/18/2026 with respect to claim(s) have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are summarized as following: Prior Arts Furuyama does not teach “ skip decoding of a second PDSCH scheduled in second slot (e.g. referred to as slot n+1) following the first slot (e.g. referred to as slot n); “ total bandwidth of the first PDSCH and the second PDSCH joint threshold comparison” [See. Remarks/ Argument Pg. 8- 14]. In addition, regarding claim 14, Prior Art Furuyama fails to teach “this network-side “not to schedule “ decision based on a bandwidth threshold “.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., skip decoding of a second PDSCH in a second slot following the first slot”, first PDSCH and the second PDSCH joint threshold comparison “ are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In this case, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, “at least one of” encompasses: first slot only. Thus, the claim does not require skip decoding in slot n+1 (as see in remark). Prior Art Furuyama expressly teaches the embodiment in which the second PDSCH is in the first slot, and skip decoding occurs only in first slot, thereby, a claim covering alternatives is anticipated when one claimed alternative is disclosed by the prior art.
Applicant’s argument regarding “the total bandwidth of the first PDSCH and the second PDSCH joint threshold comparison”, where joint threshold comparison or total bandwidth of two co-schedule PDSCH against any threshold are not recited in claims. And the claim dos not expressly require a separately calculated sum or comparison sequence. Prior Art Furuyama anticipated that each PDSCHs having specific bandwidth larger than reduced bandwidth/ predetermined bandwidth, can reasonably be read as the total bandwidth occupied by, or implicated by the two PDSCHs, is larger”. Therefore, Furuyama’s teaching of both skip decoding and total bandwidth of multi PDSCH scheduling context meets the claim’s limitations.
Regarding claim 14, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive . Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, “ at least one of the first slot and a second” covers a second PDSCH scheduled in the first slot alone, and the claim does not require of scheduling on second slot, thereby, covering not to schedule on at least second slot. Accordingly, Furuyama’s teaching of second PDSCH in first slot anticipated the scope of claim 14, furthermore, the cited disclosure is obtainable in the network apparatus.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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)(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- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102[a][2] as being anticipated by Furuyama (US 20250261199 A1), hereinafter “Furuyama”.
Regarding claim 1, Furuyama teaches A method, comprising:
performing, by a processor of a communication apparatus, a procedure to communicate with a network apparatus, wherein the procedure involves reception of a first physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) scheduled in a first slot [Furuyama: Fig. 16;18; 21; Par. 152; 162, 174, 178- 180 teaches of scheduling PDSCH over plurality of slots;]; and
determining, by the processor, to skip decoding of a second PDSCH scheduled in at least one of the first slot and a second slot following the first slot [Par. 167, 150 further teaches PDSCH is process in one given slot of plurality of slots] in an event that a total bandwidth scheduled for the first PDSCH and the second PDSCH is larger than the predetermined bandwidth [Furuyama: Par. 152 further teaches PDSCH is larger than data processing bandwidth and each PDSCHs have a specific bandwidth larger than the reduced bandwidth].
PNG
media_image1.png
574
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Furuyama teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Furuyama further teaches wherein the procedure comprises a random access procedure, and wherein the first PDSCH is scheduled with a random access radio network temporary identifier (RA-RNTI) of the communication apparatus or scheduled with a message B RNTI (MSGB-RNTI) of the communication apparatus [Furuyama; Par. 127 further teaches of comprising RA- RNTI].
Regarding claim 3, Furuyama teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Furuyama further teaches wherein the second PDSCH is scheduled with a cell RNTI (C-RNTI), a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) C-RNTI (MCS-C-RNTI), a group RNTI (G-RNTI), a multicast broadcast service (MBS) control channel (MCCH) RNTI (MCCH-RNTI), a group configured scheduling RNTI (G-CS-RNTI) or a configured scheduling RNTI (CS-RNTI) of the communication apparatus [Furuyama; Par. 127 further teaches of comprising different type of RNIT].
Regarding claim 4, Furuyama teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Furuyama further teaches determining, by the processor, to skip decoding of the second PDSCH scheduled in the first slot and the second slot [Furuyama: Par. 174 teaches od decoding PDSCH across a plurality of slots].
Regarding claim 5, Furuyama teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Furuyama further teaches wherein the procedure comprises a paging RNTI (P-RNTI) triggered system information acquisition process, and wherein the first PDSCH is scheduled with a system information RNTI (SI-RNTI) [Furuyama; Par. 127 further teaches of comprising different type of RNIT].
Regarding claim 6, Furuyama teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 5. Furuyama further teaches wherein the second PDSCH is scheduled with a C-RNTI, an MCS-C-RNTI or a CS-RNTI of the communication apparatus [Furuyama; Par. 127 further teaches of comprising different type of RNIT].
Regarding claim 7, Furuyama teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Furuyama further teaches wherein the communication apparatus is an enhanced reduced capability (eRedCap) user equipment, and wherein the bandwidth scheduled for the first PDSCH is determined based on a number of resource block configured with a sub carrier spacing [See Par. 173 teaches of using eRedCap UE for data decoding as described in the invention].
Regarding claim 8, Furuyama teaches A communication apparatus, comprising: a transceiver which, during operation, wirelessly communicates with at least one network apparatus; and a processor communicatively coupled to the transceiver such that, during operation, the processor performs operations comprising [Furuyama: Figs. 1-3];
performing, via the transceiver, a procedure to communicate with the network apparatus, wherein the procedure involves reception of a first physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) scheduled in a first slot; and [Furuyama: Fig. 16; 21; Par. 152; 162, 174, 178- 180 teaches of scheduling PDSCH over plurality of slots where slot of a first downlink share channel]; and
determining to skip decoding of a second PDSCH scheduled in at least one of the first slot and a second slot following the first slot Furuyama: Fig. 16;18; 21; Par. 152; 162, 174, 178- 180 teaches of scheduling PDSCH over plurality of slots in an event that a bandwidth scheduled for the first PDSCH is larger than a predetermined bandwidth or a total bandwidth scheduled for the first PDSCH and the second PDSCH is larger than the predetermined bandwidth [Furuyama: Par. 152 further teaches PDSCH is larger than data processing bandwidth and each PDSCHs have a specific bandwidth larger than the reduced bandwidth].
PNG
media_image1.png
574
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9 , the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 2.
Regarding claim 10 , the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 3.
Regarding claim 11 , the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 4.
Regarding claim 12 , the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 5.
Regarding claim 13 , the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, Furuyama teaches A method, comprising:
performing, by a processor of a network apparatus, a procedure to communicate with a communication apparatus, wherein the procedure involves transmission of a first physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) scheduled in a first slot; and [Furuyama: Fig. 16; 21; Par. 152; 162, 174, 178- 180 teaches of scheduling PDSCH over plurality of slots where slot of a first downlink share channel]; and
determining, by the processor, not to schedule a second PDSCH in at least one of the first slot and a second slot following the first slot in an event [Furuyama: Fig. 16;18; 21; Par. 152; 162, 174, 178- 180 teaches of scheduling PDSCH over plurality of slots] a total bandwidth scheduled for the first PDSCH and the second PDSCH is larger than the predetermined bandwidth [Furuyama: Par. 152 further teaches PDSCH is larger than data processing bandwidth and each PDSCHs have a specific bandwidth larger than the reduced bandwidth].
PNG
media_image1.png
574
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15 , the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 2.
Regarding claim 16 , the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 3.
Regarding claim 17 , the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 4.
Regarding claim 18 , the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 5.
Regarding claim 19 , the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 6.
Regarding claim 20 , the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see attached PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYAW Z SOE whose telephone number is (571)270-0304. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Charles C Jiang can be reached at 5712707191. 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.
/KYAW Z SOE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights