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 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – 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.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) in claim 30 are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-10, 12, 14-27, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (US Pub. 2024/0276520).
Regarding claims 1, 18, 29 and 30, Huang teaches a user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive, via a control channel, control signaling indicating one or more scheduled resources for one or more shared channel communications (“The DCI is further used to schedule a PDSCH, and the terminal device receives the PDSCH on the BWP 2 based on scheduling information of the DCI” in [0161]); perform the one or more shared channel communications within the one or more scheduled resources in accordance with the control signaling (“the terminal device starts to receive the PDSCH on the BWP 2” in [0161]); and perform a monitoring operation triggered by the control signaling, the monitoring operation starting at a commencement time calculated from an ending time of a temporally last resource of the one or more scheduled resources indicated by the control signaling (see “After the duration for stopping monitoring the PDCCH, the terminal device continues to monitor the PDCCH” in [0136], “and continues to monitor the PDCCH. After an end symbol for the DCI and before the slot offset indicated by the DCI, the terminal device does not receive or send data, and the terminal device does not monitor the PDCCH” in [0161] and “stops monitoring the PDCCH within the first duration (6 slots)” in [0437], see also the first duration starts from the ending time of the scheduled PDSCH in Figure 21).
Regarding claims 2 and 19, Huang teaches to perform the monitoring operation, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: resume, after one or more skipped control signal monitoring occasions, a monitoring of control signal monitoring occasions on the control channel (see “After the duration for stopping monitoring the PDCCH, the terminal device continues to monitor the PDCCH” in [0136]).
Regarding claims 3 and 20, Huang teaches the one or more skipped control signal monitoring occasions are determined based at least in part on a communication direction of the one or more scheduled resources indicated by the control signaling (“stopping monitoring a PDCCH provided in at least one embodiment, in response to the start moment of the first duration being in the next slot after the BWP switch delay, in the slot in which the PDSCH is transmitted on the switched-to DL BWP, or in the slot next to the slot in which the PDSCH is transmitted on the switched-to DL BWP” in [0293]).
Regarding claims 4 and 21, Huang teaches to receive the control signaling, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive a field comprising one or more bits, wherein the commencement time is calculated from the ending time of the temporally last resource based at least in part on a value of the one or more bits (“the first DCI indicates the terminal device to stop monitoring the PDCCH within the first duration, and indicates the length of the first duration” in [0197]).
Regarding claims 5 and 22, Huang teaches the field comprises a control channel monitoring duration field, a dedicated field, or both (“the first DCI indicates the terminal device to stop monitoring the PDCCH within the first duration, and indicates the length of the first duration” in [0197]).
Regarding claims 6 and 23, Huang teaches the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: calculate the commencement time from the ending time of the temporally last resource by subtracting a quantity of slots from the ending time of the temporally last resource (The commencement time is calculated based on the length of the first duration and the start moment of the first duration. The start moment of the first duration is based on the BWP switch delay [0298]. The start moment of the first duration is calculated by subtracting the difference between the slot offset, K0, and the BWP switch delay from the ending time of the temporally last resource (bigger the slot offset, more slots are subtracted), see Figure 11).
Regarding claims 7 and 24, Huang teaches the quantity of slots comprises a minimum scheduling offset associated with the UE (“the minimum slot offset is a minimum slot offset between a PDCCH carrying the second DCI and a PDSCH that is allowed to be scheduled by using the second DCI” in [0290]).
Regarding claims 8 and 25, Huang teaches the quantity of slots comprises a lesser quantity of slots between a minimum scheduling offset associated with the UE and a constant quantity of slots (The commencement time is calculated based on the length of the first duration and the start moment of the first duration. The start moment of the first duration is based on the PDSCH transmission [0302]. The start moment of the first duration is calculated by subtracting 1 slot from the ending time of the temporally last resource (a lesser quantity of slots between a minimum scheduling offset (5 slots) associated with the UE and a constant quantity of slots (1 slot)), see Figure 12).
Regarding claims 9 and 26, Huang teaches the control signaling further indicates a first bandwidth part for the one or more shared channel communications (“receives first downlink control information DCI from a network device on an active downlink DL bandwidth part BWP” in [0026]), and wherein, to perform the monitoring operation, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: switch to a second bandwidth part based at least in part on a bandwidth part switching indication indicated in the control signaling (“A BWP indicator field in the second DCI indicates DL BWP switching” in [0284]).
Regarding claims 10 and 27, Huang teaches the bandwidth part switching indication comprises a dedicated field of the control signaling comprising one bit (“the network device indicates the behavior of the terminal device by using the bit in the DCI. In response to a value of the bit being 0, the DCI indicates the terminal device to monitor the PDCCH based on the SS set of the SSSG0, and not to monitor the PDCCH based on the SS set of the SSSG1. In response to a value of the bit being 1, the DCI indicates the terminal device to monitor the PDCCH based on the SS set of the SSSG1, and not to monitor the PDCCH based on the SS set of the SSSG0” in [0379]), and wherein a value of the one bit indicates that the UE is to switch to the second bandwidth part (“A BWP indicator field in the second DCI indicates DL BWP switching” in [0284]) at the commencement time that is calculated from the ending time (see “After the duration for stopping monitoring the PDCCH, the terminal device continues to monitor the PDCCH” in [0136], “and continues to monitor the PDCCH. After an end symbol for the DCI and before the slot offset indicated by the DCI, the terminal device does not receive or send data, and the terminal device does not monitor the PDCCH” in [0161] and “stops monitoring the PDCCH within the first duration (6 slots)” in [0437], see also the first duration starts from the ending time of the scheduled PDSCH in Figure 21).
Regarding claim 12, Huang teaches the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive an indication of a timer value, wherein the commencement time is calculated by summing the ending time of the temporally last resource and the timer value (“stops monitoring the PDCCH within the first duration (6 slots)” in [0437], see also the first duration starts from the ending time of the scheduled PDSCH in Figure 21).
Regarding claim 14, Huang teaches a field of the control signaling comprises the indication of the timer value (“the first DCI indicates the terminal device to stop monitoring the PDCCH within the first duration” in [0014]).
Regarding claim 15, Huang teaches to receive the indication of the timer value, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive radio resource control signaling comprising the indication of the timer value (“The RRC signaling indicates the length of the first duration” in [0014]).
Regarding claim 16, Huang teaches summing the ending time of the temporally last resource and the timer value is based at least in part on a communication direction of the one or more shared channel communications (“stops monitoring the PDCCH within the first duration (6 slots)” in [0437], see also the first duration starts from the ending time of the scheduled PDSCH in Figure 21).
Regarding claim 17, Huang teaches the control signaling further indicates a first bandwidth part for the one or more shared channel communications (“receives first downlink control information DCI from a network device on an active downlink DL bandwidth part BWP” in [0026]), wherein the control signaling indicates to switch to a second bandwidth part at the commencement time (“A BWP indicator field in the second DCI indicates DL BWP switching” in [0284]), wherein the commencement time is calculated by summing the ending time of the temporally last resource and a timer value (“stops monitoring the PDCCH within the first duration (6 slots)” in [0437], see also the first duration starts from the ending time of the scheduled PDSCH in Figure 21), and wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive second control signaling before the commencement time, wherein, to perform the monitoring operation, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: continue, before switching to the second bandwidth part, shared channel communications within the first bandwidth part for an additional time period after the commencement time (“based on the first DCI, monitoring the PDCCH within the first duration, and suspends running of the timer. The terminal device continues to run the timer after the first duration. The terminal device performs DL BWP switching in response to the timer expiring” in [0026]).
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, 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 11 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. in view of Ang et al. (US Pub. 2019/0222404).
Regarding claims 11 and 28, Huang teaches the limitations in claims 9 and 26 as shown above. Huang also teaches the bandwidth part switching indication comprises a second field indicates the second bandwidth part (“the BWP indicator field in the second DCI indicates an ID of a DL BWP. The ID is different from an ID of the currently active DL BWP. The terminal device switches to the DL BWP in the indicator field in the second DCI based on the second DCI” in [0284]). Huang, however, does not teach the bandwidth part switching indication comprises a first bandwidth indicator field that indicates the first bandwidth part. Ang teaches the bandwidth part switching indication comprises a first bandwidth indicator field that indicates the first bandwidth part (“The BWP identifier field 325 may be configured to indicate a BWP identifier for the active BWP 310” in [0181]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang to have the bandwidth part switching indication comprises a first bandwidth indicator field that indicates the first bandwidth part as taught by Ang in order to indicate a BWP identifier for the active BWP 310 and to indicate a BWP identifier for the target BWP 320 [0181].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. in view of Zhou et al. (US Pub. 2023/0063082).
Regarding claim 13, Huang teaches the limitations in claim 12 as shown above. Huang, however, does not teach to perform the one or more shared channel communications, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: transmit a negative acknowledgement indication based at least in part on failing to receive a shared channel communication of the one or more shared channel communications, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: increase the timer value based at least in part on failing to receive a retransmission of the shared channel communication in response to the negative acknowledgement indication prior to the commencement time. Zhou teaches to perform the one or more shared channel communications, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: transmit a negative acknowledgement indication based at least in part on failing to receive a shared channel communication of the one or more shared channel communications (“transmit a NACK to the base station upon unsuccessful decoding the TB” in [0314]), wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: increase the timer value based at least in part on failing to receive a retransmission of the shared channel communication in response to the negative acknowledgement indication prior to the commencement time (“In the first symbol after the end of transmitting the NACK, the wireless device may start a HARQ RTT Timer (e.g., drx-HARQ-RTT-TimerDL). … During the HARQ RTT Timer being running, the wireless device may stop monitoring the PDCCH” in [0314]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang to have to perform the one or more shared channel communications, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: transmit a negative acknowledgement indication based at least in part on failing to receive a shared channel communication of the one or more shared channel communications, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: increase the timer value based at least in part on failing to receive a retransmission of the shared channel communication in response to the negative acknowledgement indication prior to the commencement time as taught by Zhou in order to add a minimum duration from the time new transmission is received and before the UE may expect a retransmission [0308].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLEMENCE S HAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571)272-7884. 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.
/CLEMENCE S HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414