DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 - 20 are presented for examination.
Specification
The title of the invention is objected for not being descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (WO2014069838 A1).
For claims 1 and 11, Lee discloses a method 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) [0007-8, 0001, 0033], the method comprising:
receiving, from a base station, cell group configuration information including first information indicating a maximum number of uplink (UL) slots for denying an 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) [0009, 0048-54];
counting a number of denied UL slots within a same cell group (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) [0008, 0060-64]; and
in case that the counted number of denied UL slots is less than the first information, determining to deny any transmission in a UL slot (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") [0008, 0062, 0065].
For claims 2, and 12, Lee 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.) [0008, 0058-63].
For claims 3, and 13, Lee discloses in case that multiple denied UL slots across all serving cells 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 (Figure 7 illustrates overlapping denial intervals, and denial events based on timing and resource intervals) [0060-64].
For claims 4, and 14, Lee 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) [0060-64].
For claims 5, and 15, Lee discloses the cell group configuration information further includes second information indicating a validity period over which UL autonomous denial slots is counted (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, 0054, 0062].
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.
Claim(s) 6-10 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO2014069838 A1) in view of Yang et al. (US Pub. 20180146485 A1).
For claims 6, Lee discloses a method performed by a base station supporting an autonomous denial in a wireless communication system , the method comprising:
generating cell group configuration information including first information indicating a maximum number of uplink (UL) slots for denying an UL transmission (the UE denies transmissions "in a specific number configured by an eNodeB (eNB)") [0005];
transmitting, to a user equipment (UE), the cell group configuration information including the first information (the network/eNB transmitting the threshold and validity period to the UE via an RRC message.) [0011]; and
in case that a counted number of denied UL slots is less than the first information, aggregate the UL transmission, wherein the number of denied UL slots is counted within a same cell group (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") [0008, 0062, 0065].
But Lee doesn’t explicitly each skipping to receive the UL transmission.
However, Yang discloses skipping to receive the UL transmission [0073-74, 0094-95].
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 Yang to ensure skipping various uplink transmission can improve data transmission efficiency.
For claims 7, and 17, Lee 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.) [0008, 0058-63].
For claims 8, and 18, Lee discloses in case that multiple denied UL slots across all serving cells 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 (Figure 7 illustrates overlapping denial intervals, and denial events based on timing and resource intervals) [0060-64].
For claims 9, and 19, Lee 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) [0060-64].
For claims 10, and 20, Lee discloses the cell group configuration information further includes second information indicating a validity period over which UL autonomous denial slots is counted (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, 0054, 0062].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20150201449-A1; US-20220022067-A1; US-20140094125-A1
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Prosecution Insights