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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on 06/02/226, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 2025/0142595 A1 to Deng et al. (hereafter refers as Deng) and US 2020/0045676 A1 to Ryu et al. (hereafter refers as Ryu).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0240672 A1 to Lim et al. (hereafter refers as Lim) in view of US 2025/0142595 A1 to Deng et al. (hereafter refers as Deng) and further in view of US 2020/0045676 A1 to Ryu et al. (hereafter refers as Ryu).
Regarding claim 1, Lim teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a radio unit (RU) (RU, Fig. 5A, 7B), comprising:
one or more memories (RU includes a memory, paragraphs [10, 48-50, 86-90] and Fig. 3B); and
one or more processors (RU includes a processor, paragraphs [10, 48-50, 86-90] and Fig. 3B), coupled to the one or more memories, individually or collectively configured to cause the RU to (the processor is coupled to the memory, and is configured to cause the RU to perform a method, paragraphs [86-90, 94, 314, 318] and Fig. 3B):
receive, in a first slot of consecutive aggregated slots (RU receives in a first slot of a group of slots including first and second slots, paragraphs [179-182]), a control plane message with a resource allocation (a control plane message from an DU, paragraphs [180-182], wherein the control plane message includes control information/scheduling information specifying resources for receiving user plane message(s), abstract and paragraphs [120-128, 147, 151, 180]); and
communicate user plane messages in the remaining slots of the consecutive aggregated slots using the resource allocation (the RU communicates user plane messages in the second slot, which is a set of slots, paragraphs [181-182], using the resource allocation, paragraphs [120-128, 147, 147, 151, 180]).
However, Lim does not explicitly teach “an aggregation parameter that indicates a quantity of remaining slots of the consecutive aggregated slots for which the resource allocation applies”.
Deng teaches an apparatus for wireless communication (a UE/WTRU, paragraph [134]), comprising:
one or more memories (includes a memory, paragraphs [30-31, 35-36, 460] and Fig. 1B); and
one or more processors (includes a processor, paragraphs [30-31, 35-36, 460] and Fig. 1B), coupled to the one or more memories, individually or collectively configured to cause the RU to (the processor is coupled to the memory, and is configured to cause the apparatus to perform a method, paragraphs [30-31, 35-36, 460] and Fig. 1B):
receive, in a first slot of consecutive aggregated slots, a control message with a resource allocation (receives in a first slot of consecutive aggregated slots, i.e. slot(t), paragraph [135], a control message/SCI with a resource allocation, paragraphs [79, 83, 110, 125-126, 135]) and an aggregation parameter (and a time resource indication value indicating number of remaining contiguous slots, i.e. Slot (t+1) to slot (t+x), scheduled for PSSCH, paragraph [135]) that indicates a quantity of remaining slots of the consecutive aggregated slots for which the resource allocation applies (time resource indication value indicating number of contiguous slots scheduled for PSSCH to which the SCI applied, paragraphs [83, 124-126, 135]); and
communicate user messages in the remaining slots of the consecutive aggregated slots using the resource allocation (communicates user data channel messages, PSSCH, in the remaining contiguous slots using the time resource indication value indicated in the SCI, paragraphs [125-127, 135-136, 156]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of control message with the aggregation parameter that indicates a quantity of remaining slots of the consecutive aggregated slots for which the resource allocation applies as taught by Kim, with the teachings of control plane message as taught by Lim, for a purpose of increase efficiency in receiving the user plane messages by clearly specifying the quantity of the remaining slots for receiving the user plane messages via the control plane message (see Deng, paragraphs [125-127, 135-136, 156]).
However, the combination of Lim and Deng does not explicitly teach the aggregation parameter is an aggregation “factor” parameter.
Ryu teaches an apparatus for wireless communication (UE, Fig. 8A-8B), comprising:
one or more memories (includes a memory, paragraphs [8-9, 34]); and
one or more processors (includes a processor, paragraphs [8-9, 34]), coupled to the one or more memories, individually or collectively configured to cause the RU to (the processor is coupled to the memory, and is configured to cause the UE to perform a method, paragraphs [8-9, 34]):
receive an aggregation factor parameter (receives a PDSCH aggregation level parameter, paragraphs [84-85]) that indicates a quantity of slots of the consecutive aggregated slots for which the resource allocation applies (wherein the PDSCH aggregation level indicating a quantity of slots of consecutive aggregated slots for which resource allocation applies, i.e. PDCCH, paragraphs [84-86]); and
communicate user messages in the slots of the consecutive aggregated slots using the resource allocation (communicates PDSCH in the consecutive aggregated slots using resource allocation, paragraphs [84-86, 91-94]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of aggregation factor parameter as taught by Ryu, with the teachings of aggregation parameter as taught by combination of Lim and Deng, for a purpose of increase compatibility of the teachings by using the aggregation factor, thus enabling the teachings to be used with the system employing the aggregation factor parameter as an indication of the slots (see Ryu, paragraphs [84-86, 91-94]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lim, Deng and Ryu further teaches wherein the aggregation factor parameter is a field in the control plane message (wherein the control plane message comprising slot information field, see Lim, paragraph [120-128, 147, 151, 180], which including the aggregation factor parameter, see Deng, paragraphs [125-126, 135], see Ryu, paragraphs [84-86]).
Regarding claim 3, Lim further teaches wherein the control plane message is a section type 1 message (wherein the control plane message is a section type 1 message, paragraphs [122-134, 147, 150]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lim, Deng and Ryu further teaches wherein the control plane message is of a section type 1 (wherein the control plane message is a section type 1 message, see Lim, paragraphs [122-134, 147, 150]) and having a section extension that is dedicated to including the aggregation factor parameter (wherein the control plane message including several fields for indicating resources allocation and slot parameters, see Lim, paragraphs [121, 147], including the aggregation factor parameter, see Deng, paragraphs [125-126, 135], see Ryu, paragraphs [84-86]).
Regarding claims 6 and 11, Lim teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a distributed unit (DU) (DU, Fig. 3A, 5A, 7B) and a method of wireless communication performed by a distributed unit (DU) (DU for performing a method, Fig. 5A, 7B), comprising:
one or more memories (DU includes a memory, paragraphs [10, 48-50, 75-76, 81-83] and Fig. 3A); and
one or more processors (DU includes a processor, paragraphs [10, 48-50, 75, 81-83] and Fig. 3A), coupled to the one or more memories, individually or collectively configured to cause the DU to (the processor is coupled to the memory, and is configured to cause the DU to perform a method, paragraphs [75, 81-83, 94, 314, 318] and Fig. 3A):
transmit, in a first slot of consecutive aggregated slots (DU transmits in a first slot of a group of slots including first and second slots, to an RU, paragraphs [179-182]), a control plane message with a resource allocation (a control plane message from an DU, paragraphs [180-182], wherein the control plane message includes control information/scheduling information specifying resources for receiving user plane message(s), abstract and paragraphs [120-128, 147, 147, 151, 180]); and
communicate user plane messages and not control plane messages in the remaining slots of the consecutive aggregated slots using the resource allocation (the DU communicates user plane messages in the second slot, which is a set of slots, paragraphs [181-182], using the resource allocation, paragraphs [120-128, 147, 147, 151, 180]).
However, Lim does not explicitly teach “an aggregation parameter that indicates a quantity of remaining slots of the consecutive aggregated slots for which the resource allocation applies”.
Deng teaches a method comprising:
transmitting, in a first slot of consecutive aggregated slots, a control message with a resource allocation (transmits in a first slot of consecutive aggregated slots, i.e. slot(t), paragraph [135], a control message/SCI with a resource allocation, paragraphs [79, 83, 110, 125-126, 135]) and an aggregation parameter (and a time resource indication value indicating number of remaining contiguous slots, i.e. Slot (t+1) to slot (t+x), scheduled for PSSCH, paragraph [135]) that indicates a quantity of remaining slots of the consecutive aggregated slots for which the resource allocation applies (time resource indication value indicating number of contiguous slots scheduled for PSSCH to which the SCI applied, paragraphs [83, 124-126, 135]); and
communicating user messages in the remaining slots of the consecutive aggregated slots using the resource allocation (communicates user data channel messages, PSSCH, in the remaining contiguous slots using the time resource indication value indicated in the SCI, paragraphs [125-127, 135-136, 156]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of control message with the aggregation parameter that indicates a quantity of remaining slots of the consecutive aggregated slots for which the resource allocation applies as taught by Kim, with the teachings of control plane message as taught by Lim, for a purpose of increase efficiency in receiving the user plane messages by clearly specifying the quantity of the remaining slots for receiving the user plane messages via the control plane message (see Deng, paragraphs [125-127, 135-136, 156]).
However, the combination of Lim and Deng does not explicitly teach the aggregation parameter is an aggregation “factor” parameter.
Ryu teaches an aggregation factor parameter (a PDSCH aggregation level parameter, paragraphs [84-85]) that indicates a quantity of slots of the consecutive aggregated slots for which the resource allocation applies (wherein the PDSCH aggregation level indicating a quantity of slots of consecutive aggregated slots for which resource allocation applies, i.e. PDCCH, paragraphs [84-86]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of aggregation factor parameter as taught by Ryu, with the teachings of aggregation parameter as taught by combination of Lim and Deng, for a purpose of increase compatibility of the teachings by using the aggregation factor, thus enabling the teachings to be used with the system employing the aggregation factor parameter as an indication of the slots (see Ryu, paragraphs [84-86, 91-94]).
Regarding claims 7 and 12, the combination of Lim, Deng and Ryu further teaches wherein the aggregation factor parameter is a field in the control plane message (wherein the control plane message comprising slot information field, see Lim, paragraph [120-128, 147, 151, 180], which including the aggregation factor parameter, see Deng, paragraphs [125-126, 135], see Ryu, paragraphs [84-86]).
Regarding claims 8 and 13, Lim further teaches wherein the control plane message is a section type 1 message (wherein the control plane message is a section type 1 message, paragraphs [122-134, 147, 150]).
Regarding claims 9 and 14, the combination of Lim, Deng and Ryu further teaches wherein the control plane message is of a section type 1 (wherein the control plane message is a section type 1 message, see Lim, paragraphs [122-134, 147, 150]) and having a section extension that is dedicated to including the aggregation factor parameter (wherein the control plane message including several fields for indicating resources allocation and slot parameters, see Lim, paragraphs [121, 147], including the aggregation factor parameter, see Deng, paragraphs [125-126, 135], see Ryu, paragraphs [84-86]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Lim, Deng and Ryu further teaches wherein the control plane message is received only in the first slot of the consecutive aggregated slots (wherein the control plane message is received only in the first slots of the consecutive aggregated slots, see Lim, paragraphs [179-182], see Deng, paragraph [135], i.e. separated slot from user data/pdschs, see Ryu, paragraphs [84-86] and Fig. 8A-8B).
Claims 5, 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0240672 A1 to Lim et al. (hereafter refers as Lim) in view of US 2025/0142595 A1 to Deng et al. (hereafter refers as Deng) and US 2020/0045676 A1 to Ryu et al. (hereafter refers as Ryu) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2021/0385686 A1 to Ahmed et al. (hereafter refers as Ahmed).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lim, Deng and Ryu does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the RU to “transmit an indication of a capability of the RU to support use of” the aggregation factor parameter.
Ahmed teaches one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause an RU (an RU includes a processor for causing the RU to perform the functions, paragraphs [61, 63, 69]) to transmit an indication of a capability of the RU to support use of the aggregation factor parameter (the RU transmits an information of capability of the RU, indicating supported window length, paragraphs [153, 183, 237, 301, 338], i.e. across multiple time units, paragraphs [105, 115, 243-245] and Fig. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of transmitting the indication of a capability of the RU to support use of the aggregation factor parameter as taught by Ahmed, with the teachings of the RU supporting the aggregation factor parameter as taught by combination of Lim, Deng and Ryu, for a purpose of increase efficiency in determining whether the RU supporting the aggregation factor parameter by transmitting its supporting window length capability (see Ahmed, paragraphs [153, 183, 237, 301, 338]).
Regarding claims 10 and 15, the combination of Lim, Deng and Ryu does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the DU to “receive an indication of a capability of a radio unit to support use of” the aggregation factor parameter.
Ahmed teaches one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause an DU (an DU includes a processor for causing the DU to perform the functions, paragraphs [62-63, 69]) to receive an indication of a capability of a radio unit to support use of the aggregation factor parameter (the DU receives from an RU, an information of capability of the RU, indicating supported window length, paragraphs [153, 183, 237, 301, 338], i.e. across multiple time units, paragraphs [105, 115, 243-245] and Fig. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of receiving the indication of a capability of the RU to support use of the aggregation factor parameter as taught by Ahmed, with the teachings of the RU supporting the aggregation factor parameter as taught by combination of Lim, Deng and Ryu, for a purpose of increase efficiency in determining whether the RU supporting the aggregation factor parameter by transmitting its supporting window length capability (see Ahmed, paragraphs [153, 183, 237, 301, 338]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0240672 A1 to Lim et al. (hereafter refers as Lim) in view of US 2025/0142595 A1 to Deng et al. (hereafter refers as Deng) and US 2020/0045676 A1 to Ryu et al. (hereafter refers as Ryu) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2022/0183004 A1 to Huang et al. (hereafter refers as Huang).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Lim, Deng and Ryu does not explicitly teach the aggregation factor parameter indicates a quantity of consecutive slots “selected from two slots, four slots, and eight slots”.
Huang teaches an aggregation factor parameter indicates a quantity of consecutive slots selected from two slots, four slots, and eight slots (the quantity of consecutive slots selected from a group of 2, 4 and 8 slots, paragraphs [378-380]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of aggregation factor parameter indicates a quantity of consecutive slots selected from two slots, four slots, and eight slots as taught by Huang, with the teachings of the aggregation factor parameter as taught by combination of Lim, Deng and Ryu, for a purpose of increase the number of remaining slots while maintaining a variety of the number of remaining slots by allowing the slots to selected from a group of 2, 4 and 8 (see Huang, paragraphs [378-380]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0240672 A1 to Lim et al. (hereafter refers as Lim) in view of US 2025/0142595 A1 to Deng et al. (hereafter refers as Deng) and US 2020/0045676 A1 to Ryu et al. (hereafter refers as Ryu) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2023/0208559 A1 to Rama Chandran.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Lim, Deng and Ryu does not explicitly teach the control plane message is a “section type 8 message”.
Rama Chandran teaches the control plane message is a section type 8 message (a control plane message is a section type 8 message, paragraph [66]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of the control plane message is a section type 8 message as taught by Rama Chandran, with the teachings of the control plane message as taught by combination of Lim, Deng and Ryu, for a purpose of increase compatibility of the teachings by allowing the teachings to be used in O-RAN environment (see Rama Chandran, paragraph [66]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0240672 A1 to Lim et al. (hereafter refers as Lim) in view of US 2025/0142595 A1 to Deng et al. (hereafter refers as Deng) and US 2020/0045676 A1 to Ryu et al. (hereafter refers as Ryu) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2019/0223191 A1 to Kim et al. (hereafter refers as Kim).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Lim, Deng and Ryu does not explicitly teach the resource allocation “is for the first slot and” remaining slots in consecutive aggregated slots.
Kim teaches the resource allocation is for the first slot and remaining slots in consecutive aggregated slots (PDCCH in a first slot, includes resource allocation for PDSCHs in the first slot and remaining slots in consecutive aggregated slots, Fig. 8 and paragraphs [103-111]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of the resource allocation is for the first slot and remaining slots in consecutive aggregated slots as taught by Kim, with the teachings of the resource allocation as taught by combination of Lim, Deng and Ryu, for a purpose of increase efficiency in resource allocation by enabling the resource allocation to be applied to the first slot and remaining slots (see Kim, Fig. 8 and paragraphs [103-111]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0240672 A1 to Lim et al. (hereafter refers as Lim) in view of US 2025/0142595 A1 to Deng et al. (hereafter refers as Deng) and US 2020/0045676 A1 to Ryu et al. (hereafter refers as Ryu) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2010/0304689 A1 to McBeath et al. (hereafter refers as McBeath).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Lim, Deng and Ryu does not explicitly teach the aggregation factor parameter comprises “a four-bit field”.
McBeath teaches the aggregation factor parameter comprises a four-bit field. (aggregation level parameter comprises a four-bit field, Fig.5(a) and paragraph [66]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of the aggregation factor parameter comprises a four-bit field as taught by McBeath, with the teachings of the aggregation factor parameter as taught by combination of Lim, Deng and Ryu, for a purpose of increase efficiency in specifying the aggregation factor parameter by using the four bit field, thus enabling the aggregation factor parameter to select to a group of aggregation factors (see McBeath, Fig.5(a) and paragraph [66]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2021/0385864 A1 teaches an DCI including an indication an number of remaining slots from a slot of DCI, for communication (see paragraphs [127-130]).
US 2019/0297642 A1 teaches an DCI includes aggregation factor parameter number of slots in consecutive aggregated slots, wherein the DCI includes resource allocation for first slot and remaining slots (Fig. 6-7 and paragraphs [
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG B. HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)270-7642. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Ian N. Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
/DUNG B HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469 August 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights