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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to the application filed on 04/04/2024.
Claims 1-8 and 20-31 are pending in this application, with claims 1,20 and 27 being independent.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The Applicant elects claims 1-8 without traverse in the reply filed on 04/14/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1,20 and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1,20,27 the phrase “timing information for SSBs” is used without providing any significance of it in the claimed invention. None of the dependent claims clarify the meaning of it. The phrase is open to any type interpretation and the specification are only used for learning about the claimed invention’s concept without bringing any content of the specification in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1,3,6,20,22,24,27,29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHENG (US 2025/0112715 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Cheng”) in view of Lin (US 2023/0145355 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Lin”) and further in view of Li et al. (US 2024/0155603 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Li”).
Regarding claims 1,20 and 27, Cheng discloses a method and an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (Cheng Fig.4 Para[0044] A UE), comprising: receiving, via a first message, timing information for a set of synchronization signal blocks; receiving (Cheng Fig.4 Para[0036-40,0044] A gNB sends SSB information (i.e. first message) to the UE), via a second message, updated timing information for the set of synchronization signal blocks (Cheng Fig.4 Para[0036-40,0044] A gNB sends on-demand SSB information (i.e. second message) to the UE), the updated timing information adding one or more additional synchronization signal blocks to the set of synchronization signal blocks (Cheng Fig.4 Para[0036-40,0044] The on-demand SSB is an new SSB (i.e. additional) requested by the UE).
Cheng does not explicitly disclose receiving a downlink control information format comprising a slot format indicator, wherein the transmission direction format indicated by the slot format indicator being in accordance with a rule that defines allowed transmission direction formats for slots that overlap with updated synchronization signal block timing information.
However, Lin from the same field of invention discloses receiving a downlink control information format comprising a slot format indicator (Lin Fig.6 Para[0049,0304-305] The DCI is sent from the base station which is DCI format 2_0 indicating transmission direction), wherein the transmission direction format (Lin Fig.6 Para[0304-305] The transmission direction) indicated by the slot format indicator being in accordance with a rule (Lin Fig.6 Para[0049,0304-305] The SFI for collision handling rule) that defines allowed transmission direction formats for slots that overlap with updated synchronization signal block timing information (Lin Fig.6 Para[0304-305] The transmission direction by SFI indicates which rule to apply for symbols for specific time resources).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cheng to have the feature of “receiving a downlink control information format comprising a slot format indicator, wherein the transmission direction format indicated by the slot format indicator being in accordance with a rule that defines allowed transmission direction formats for slots that overlap with updated synchronization signal block timing information” as taught by Lin. The motivation would have been to improve transmission direction efficiency (Lin Para[0005]).
Cheng in view of Lin does not explicitly disclose wherein the slot format indicator indicating a transmission direction format for a slot that overlaps with a symbol of a synchronization signal block of the one or more additional synchronization signal blocks.
However, Li from the same field of invention discloses wherein the slot format indicator indicating a transmission direction format for a slot that overlaps with a symbol of a synchronization signal block of the one or more additional synchronization signal blocks (Li Para[0127,0203-205] When the DL reception (i.e. dynamically scheduled symbol for SSB) is overlapped with UL transmission then the SFI is used to indicate the overlap).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cheng and Lin to have the feature of “wherein the slot format indicator indicating a transmission direction format for a slot that overlaps with a symbol of a synchronization signal block of the one or more additional synchronization signal blocks” as taught by Li. The motivation would have been to enhance handling of overlap between DL and UL (Li Para[0010]).
Specifically for claims 1 and 27, Cheng discloses the apparatus that includes a processor (Cheng Fig.17 Para[0078] A processor) and memory (Cheng Fig.17 Para[0078] memory).
Regarding claims 3,22 and 29, Cheng in view of Lin and Li discloses the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Cheng further discloses receive the first message as a system information block or radio resource control signaling (Cheng Para[0055] SSB transmission configuration from the network via system information); and receive the second message as downlink control information or a medium access control (MAC) control element (Cheng Para[0052-53] A DCI or MAC-CE for on-demand SSB).
Regarding claims 6,24 and 31, Cheng in view of Lin and Li discloses the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Cheng further discloses wherein the updated synchronization signal block timing information comprises dynamically updated synchronization signal block timing information (Cheng Para[0052-53] A on-demand SSB for dynamic SSB), semi-persistently updated synchronization signal block timing information (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim), or a combination thereof (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim).
Claims 2,21 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Lin, Li and further in view of Jo et al. (US 2020/0351048 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Jo”).
Regarding claims 2,21 and 28, Cheng in view of Lin and Li discloses the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Cheng in view of Lin and Li does not explicitly disclose receive, via the timing information, one or more first parameters indicative of a first set of symbols for the set of synchronization signal blocks; receive, via the updated timing information, one or more second parameters indicative of at least a second set of symbols for the one or more additional synchronization signal blocks; and determine, in accordance with the rule that defines the allowed transmission direction formats, that the transmission direction format indicated by the slot format indicator indicates the second set of symbols as downlink symbols, flexible symbols, or a combination thereof.
However, Jo from the same field of invention discloses receive, via the timing information, one or more first parameters indicative of a first set of symbols for the set of synchronization signal blocks (Jo Fig.11 Para[0125-140] The UE receives a specific resource (i.e. symbol) information); receive, via the updated timing information, one or more second parameters indicative of at least a second set of symbols for the one or more additional synchronization signal blocks (Jo Fig.11 Para[0125-140] The UE receives semi-static resource (i.e. symbol) information); and determine, in accordance with the rule that defines the allowed transmission direction formats, that the transmission direction format indicated by the slot format indicator indicates the second set of symbols as downlink symbols, flexible symbols, or a combination thereof (Jo Fig.11 Para[0125-140] The SFI indicates downlink symbols for predetermined operation (i.e. rule)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cheng, Lin and Li to have the feature of “receive, via the timing information, one or more first parameters indicative of a first set of symbols for the set of synchronization signal blocks; receive, via the updated timing information, one or more second parameters indicative of at least a second set of symbols for the one or more additional synchronization signal blocks; and determine, in accordance with the rule that defines the allowed transmission direction formats, that the transmission direction format indicated by the slot format indicator indicates the second set of symbols as downlink symbols, flexible symbols, or a combination thereof” as taught by Jo. The motivation would have been to ensure resource scheduling flexibility (Jo Para[0024]).
Claims 4-5,23 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Lin, Li and further in view of WANG (US 2025/0023667 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Wang”).
Regarding claims 4,23 and 30, Cheng in view of Lin and Li discloses the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Cheng in view of Lin and Li does not explicitly disclose wherein the rule defines that, for a set of symbols of one or more slots corresponding to one or more synchronization signal blocks with candidate synchronization signal block indices corresponding to synchronization signal block indices indicated to the UE by the timing information, and adapted based at least in part on the updated timing information, the UE expects to detect the downlink control information format with the slot format indicator that indicates the set of symbols as downlink symbols, flexible symbols, or a combination thereof.
However, Wang from the same field of invention discloses wherein the rule defines that, for a set of symbols of one or more slots corresponding to one or more synchronization signal blocks with candidate synchronization signal block indices corresponding to synchronization signal block indices indicated to the UE by the timing information, and adapted based at least in part on the updated timing information, the UE expects to detect the downlink control information format with the slot format indicator that indicates the set of symbols as downlink symbols, flexible symbols, or a combination thereof (Wang Para[0087,0091-92],0164] The UE does not expect to detect DCI format 2_0 with SFI for UL when set flexible )
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cheng, Lin and Li to have the feature of “wherein the rule defines that, for a set of symbols of one or more slots corresponding to one or more synchronization signal blocks with candidate synchronization signal block indices corresponding to synchronization signal block indices indicated to the UE by the timing information, and adapted based at least in part on the updated timing information, the UE expects to detect the downlink control information format with the slot format indicator that indicates the set of symbols as downlink symbols, flexible symbols, or a combination thereof” as taught by Wang. The motivation would have been to save the terminal power (Wang Para[0088]).
Regarding claim 5, Cheng in view of Lin, Li and Wang discloses the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Wang further discloses wherein the rule further defines that the UE does not expect to detect the downlink control information format with the slot format indicator that indicates the set of symbols of the slot as uplink (Wang Para[0091-92],0164] The UE does not expect to detect DCI format 2_0 with SFI for UL).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cheng, Lin and Li to have the feature of “wherein the rule further defines that the UE does not expect to detect the downlink control information format with the slot format indicator that indicates the set of symbols of the slot as uplink” as taught by Wang. The motivation would have been to save the terminal power (Wang Para[0088]).
Claims 7 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Lin, Li and further in view of KANG et al. (US 2022/0217746 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Kang”).
Regarding claims 7 and 25, Cheng in view of Lin and Li discloses the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Cheng in view of Lin and Li does not explicitly disclose transmit, via the one or more antennas, information indicative of a capability of the UE to support the rule; and receive, via the one or more antennas, an indication of the rule in accordance with the capability of the UE to support the rule.
However, Kang from the same field of invention discloses transmit, via the one or more antennas, information indicative of a capability of the UE to support the rule; and receive, via the one or more antennas, an indication of the rule in accordance with the capability of the UE to support the rule (Kang Fig.14 Para[0424-428,0431] The UE capability regarding different operation supported (i.e. rule) is received and panel related configuration is sent in response).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cheng and Lin and Li to have the feature of “transmit, via the one or more antennas, information indicative of a capability of the UE to support the rule; and receive, via the one or more antennas, an indication of the rule in accordance with the capability of the UE to support the rule” as taught by Kang. The motivation would have been to reduce signaling overhead (Kang Para[0036]).
Claims 8 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Lin, Li and further in view of ZHANG et al. (US 2024/0291594 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Zhang”).
Regarding claims 8 and 26, Cheng in view of Lin and Li discloses the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Cheng in view of Lin and Li does not explicitly disclose receive an indication of an activation or a deactivation of the rule, reception of the downlink control information format based on the activation or the deactivation of the rule.
However, Zhang from the same field of invention discloses receive an indication of an activation or a deactivation of the rule, reception of the downlink control information format based on the activation or the deactivation of the rule (Zhang Fig.9 Para[0067,0119-120] A DCI with indication ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cheng, Lin and Li to have the feature of “receive an indication of an activation or a deactivation of the rule, reception of the downlink control information format based on the activation or the deactivation of the rule” as taught by Zhang. The motivation would have been enhance carrier switching (Zhang Para[0003]).
Although specific columns, figures, reference numerals, lines of the reference(s), etc. have been referred to, Applicant should consider the entire applied prior art reference(s).
Additional References
The following prior arts are made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
1. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0244547 to Ghan (Paragraphs:210-225)
Conclusion
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/defau1Vfiles/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sudesh M. Patidar whose telephone number is (571)272-2768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:: 10AM-6:30PM ET.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights