DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/26/2025 has been entered and considered by Examiner. Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-12, 14-17, and 19-24 are presented for examination. This Action is made FINAL.
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, 2, 4-7, 9-12, 14-17, and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (Pub. US 20150282200 A1) in view of Doi et al. (US Pub. 20100008334A1).
For claims 1 and 11, Lee discloses a method (Figure 7, "counting the number of aggregated denials of uplink (UL) subframes in all serving cells". While the document refers to "all serving cells," this corresponds to the serving cells within a cell group in the context of the system architecture described) [0010, 0064-68] performed by a user equipment (UE) supporting an autonomous denial in a wireless communication system (Figures 1, 6, and 7 illustrate a method for a UE to apply autonomous denial to solve in-device coexistence (IDC) interference) [0009-10, 0001, 0036], the method comprising:
receiving, from a base station, first information indicating a maximum number of uplink (UL) slots for denying a UL transmission (Figure 6, a threshold is defined as the "maximum aggregate number of the assigned UL subframes for which the UE is allowed to deny the scheduled UL transmission in any serving cells". This threshold is received via a radio resource control (RRC) connection reconfiguration message) [0011-13, 0050-56] and second information indicating a validity period for counting autonomous denial UL slots (the UE receives "the validity period and the threshold from a network". The counting of aggregated denials occurs "over a validity period including previous subframes and a current subframe") [0011-13, 0056-64];
determining to deny any transmission in a UL slot based on the first information and the second information (Step S120 in Figure 9; "denying scheduled UL transmission at the current subframe if the number of aggregated denials of UL subframes in all serving cells is less than a threshold" and The counting of aggregated denials occurs "over a validity period including previous subframes and a current subframe") [0010, 0066-69],
But Lee doesn’t explicitly discloses wherein, in case that multiple denied UL slots across all serving cells within a same cell group partially or fully overlap in a time domain, the number of denied UL slots across all serving cells is counted as one denied UL slot.
However, Doi disclose wherein, in case that multiple denied UL slots across all serving cells within a same cell group partially or fully overlap in a time domain, the number of denied UL slots across all serving cells is counted as one denied UL slot (Figs. 13, 16, and 17; steps 1301-1604; the overlapping/collision time slots, for the same cell group 112, go through a collision counter for aggregation for prohibited time slots, then based on the threshold of the aggregated collision time slots, the result would be rejected using a single Non-confirm signal/frame as a whole badge for the counted collision timing slots “there is an overlapping time slot, the overlapping prohibited time slot is calculated from the communication-prohibited time slots registered in the communication prohibition table 205”) [0130-131, 0137-145, 0167-171].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing transmission by the uplink used in a mobile network; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Lee with Doi to ensure aggregated uplink transmission can be used to optimize data usage, thus, improve data transmission efficiency.
For claims 2, and 12, Lee, as modified by Doi, discloses in case that the UE counts the number of denied UL slots within the same cell group, the UE sums up denied UL slots across all serving cells within the same cell group ("aggregated denials... in all serving cells". Summing is the inherent mathematical method for calculating an "aggregate" number across multiple cells.) [0010, 0058-63].
For claims 4, and 14, Lee, as modified by Doi, discloses the number of denied UL slots across all serving cells is counted as one denied UL slot based on a longest slot (Figure 7 illustrates time duration-based denial operation) [0064-68].
For claims 5, and 15, Lee, as modified by Doi, discloses the first information and the second information are received via cell group configuration information (the UE receives "the validity period and the threshold from a network". The counting of aggregated denials occurs "over a validity period including previous subframes and a current subframe") [0011-13, 0056-64].
For claims 6, and 16, Lee discloses a method (Figure 7, "counting the number of aggregated denials of uplink (UL) subframes in all serving cells". While the document refers to "all serving cells," this corresponds to the serving cells within a cell group in the context of the system architecture described) [0010, 0064-68] performed by a base station supporting an autonomous denial in a wireless communication system (Figures 1, 6, and 7 illustrate a method for a UE to apply autonomous denial to solve in-device coexistence (IDC) interference) [0009-10, 0001, 0036], the method comprising:
transmitting, to a user equipment (UE), first information indicating a maximum number of uplink (UL) slots for denying a UL transmission (Figure 6, a threshold is defined as the "maximum aggregate number of the assigned UL subframes for which the UE is allowed to deny the scheduled UL transmission in any serving cells". This threshold is received via a radio resource control (RRC) connection reconfiguration message) [0011-13, 0050-56] and second information indicating a validity period for counting UL autonomous denial slots (the UE receives "the validity period and the threshold from a network". The counting of aggregated denials occurs "over a validity period including previous subframes and a current subframe") [0011-13, 0056-64],
wherein transmission in a UL slot is determined to be denied based on the first information and the second information (Step S120 in Figure 9; "denying scheduled UL transmission at the current subframe if the number of aggregated denials of UL subframes in all serving cells is less than a threshold" and The counting of aggregated denials occurs "over a validity period including previous subframes and a current subframe") [0010, 0066-69], and
But Lee doesn’t explicitly discloses wherein, in case that multiple denied UL slots across all serving cells within a same cell group partially or fully overlap in a time domain, the number of denied UL slots across all serving cells is counted as one denied UL slot.
However, Doi disclose wherein, in case that multiple denied UL slots across all serving cells within a same cell group partially or fully overlap in a time domain, the number of denied UL slots across all serving cells is counted as one denied UL slot (Figs. 13, 16, and 17; steps 1301-1604; the overlapping/collision time slots, for the same cell group 112, go through a collision counter for aggregation for prohibited time slots, then based on the threshold of the aggregated collision time slots, the result would be rejected using a single Non-confirm signal/frame as a whole badge for the counted collision timing slots “there is an overlapping time slot, the overlapping prohibited time slot is calculated from the communication-prohibited time slots registered in the communication prohibition table 205”) [0130-131, 0137-145, 0167-171].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing transmission by the uplink used in a mobile network; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Lee with Doi to ensure aggregated uplink transmission can be used to optimize data usage, thus, improve data transmission efficiency.
For claims 7, and 17, Lee, as modified by Doi, discloses counting the number of the denied UL slots comprising: summing up the denied UL slots across all serving cells within the same cell group ("aggregated denials... in all serving cells". Summing is the inherent mathematical method for calculating an "aggregate" number across multiple cells.) [0010, 0058-63].
For claims 9, and 19, Lee, as modified by Doi, discloses the number of denied UL slots across all serving cells is counted as one denied UL slot based on a longest slot (Figure 7 illustrates time duration-based denial operation) [0064-68].
For claims 10, and 20, Lee, as modified by Doi, discloses the first information and the second information are received via cell group configuration information (the UE receives "the validity period and the threshold from a network". The counting of aggregated denials occurs "over a validity period including previous subframes and a current subframe") [0011-13, 0056-64].
For claims 21 and 23, Lee, as modified by Doi, discloses the UE is allowed to deny the transmission for as many slots as indicated by the first information during a number of slots indicated by the second information (the UE receives "the validity period and the threshold from a network". The counting of aggregated denials occurs "over a validity period including previous subframes and a current subframe"… “whether the total number of denied UL subframes for the SCell(s) ‘2’ over a duration of a validity period from this subframe in the past is less than the configured autonomous denial rate ‘B’.”) [0115-116, 0127-128, 0011-13, 0056-64].
For claims 22 and 24, Lee, as modified by Doi, discloses the transmission is denied for as many slots as indicated by the first information during a number of slots indicated by the second information (the UE receives "the validity period and the threshold from a network". The counting of aggregated denials occurs "over a validity period including previous subframes and a current subframe" “whether the total number of denied UL subframes for the SCell(s) ‘2’ over a duration of a validity period from this subframe in the past is less than the configured autonomous denial rate ‘B’.”) [0115-116, 0127-128, 0011-13, 0056-64].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to all the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
In view of amendment, a new reference has been used for new ground of rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PAKEE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3633. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Armouche, Hadi can be reached on 571-270-3618. 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.
/PAKEE FANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights