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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on February 9, 2024 and February 12, 2025 have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 11, 12, 17, 18, 20, 51, 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lei (US 20240057114 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lei teaches a method for aligning downlink control information (DCI), performed by a network device (base station), (A base station BS may perform DCI size alignment [0114]) comprising:
aligning a payload of a first DCI with a payload of one of second DCIs according to a classification mode of a size of the first DCI, wherein the first DCI is configured to schedule a multicast-broadcast scheduling (MBS) service, and the second DCI is configured to schedule a service other than the MBS service (the base station (BS) may determine a size of a first DCI format, which may be DCI format 1_0 with G-RNTI, where G-RNTI is used in a point to many transmission scheme. The BS may determine a size of a second DCI format, which may be DCI format 1_0 with a CRC scrambled by a C-RNTI, which is used in a point to point transmission scheme. Because the sizes of DCIs are determined prior to transmission, the system classifies the DCIs based on their respective sizes (e.g. alignment procedures will depend on DCI classification such as size). When the size of the first DCI format differs from that of the second format, the base station performs a DCI size alignment to align the size of the first DCI format with that of the second before transmission [0025-0026, 0111-0114]).
Regarding claim 11, Lei anticipates wherein aligning the payload of the first DCI with the payload of one of the second DCIs according to the classification mode of a size of the first DCI comprises:
determining that the classification mode of the size of the first DCI is classifying the first DCI as a DCI scrambled by a C-RNTI (DCI format 1_0 (used as the group-common DCI format) with a CRC scrambled by the group-common RNTI may be regarded (classified) as the same as a DCI format with a CRC scrambled by a C-RNTI [0040]), and alignment of the second DCIs is not completed, and aligning the payload of the first DCI with the payload of one of the second DCIs according to a format of the first DCI (sizes of DCI format with CRC scrambled by a G-RNTI and a DCI format with CRC scrambled by a C-RNTI are determined, and both may be aligned when the size threshold is exceeded. The payload of the DCI format with CRC scrambled by a G-RNTI may be aligned to the second DCI format [0043-46]).
Regarding claim 12, Lei teaches wherein aligning the payload of the first DCI with the payload of one of the second DCIs according to the format of the first DCI comprises:
determining that the format of the first DCI is format 1_0 , and determining a size of a FDRA field in the first DCI according to a number of RBs contained in a CORESET #0 or a number of RBs contained in an initial DL BWP (for a DCI format 1_0, the size may be determined according to Table 1, where a value set to the number of RBs in CORESET 0 (or the initial DL BWP if CORESET 0 is not configured) is used in determining the FDRA [0045]) and determining that the payload of the first DCI is different from a payload of a second DCI scrambled by a RNTI other than the C-RNTI, and performing at least one of: adding a padding bit to the first DCI (a number of padding bits may be generated for the first DCI format 1_0 [0047]), adding an appended bit after all effective information fields of the first DCI, or performing truncation on a part of the information fields, to align the payload of the first DCI with the payload of the second DCI scrambled by the RNTI other than the C-RNTI (when the total number of different DCI sizes (classified as C-RNTI scrambled) exceeds “3” for the serving cell, additional DCI size alignment may be performed to align the size of DCI format 1_0 with the CRC scrambled by different RNTIs [0041]).
Regarding claim 17, Lei anticipates wherein aligning the payload of the first DCI with the payload of one of the second DCIs according to the format of the first DCI comprises one of: determining that the payload of the first DCI is smaller than the payload of one of the second DCIs, and adding a padding bit to the first DCI (sizes of DCI format with CRC scrambled by a G-RNTI and a DCI format with CRC scrambled by a C-RNTI are determined, and both may be aligned when the size threshold is exceeded. When the payload size of the DCI format 1_0 with a CRC scrambled by a G-RNTI is smaller than a DCI format 1_0 with a CRC scrambled by C-RNTI, a number of padding bits pay be added to the DCI format 1_0 with a CRC scrambled by a G-RNTI until it has the same payload size as the DCI format 1_0 with C-RNTI [0045]);
determining that the payload of the first DCI is smaller than the payload of one of the second DCIs, and adding an appended bit after an information field of the first DCI; or
determining that the payload of the first DCI is greater than the payload of one of the second DCIs, and performing truncation on the first DCI.
Regarding claim 18, Lei anticipates wherein adding the padding bit to the first DCI or adding the appended bit after the information field of the first DCI comprises:
adding the padding bit in a FDRA field of the first DCI (a number of padding bits may be added to an FDRA field of the DCI format 1_0 with a CRC scrambled by a G-RNTI until the size of the first and second DCI formats are the same [0048]); or
wherein performing truncation on the first DCI comprises: performing truncation on a FDRA field in the first DCI.
Regarding claim 20, Lei teaches a method for aligning downlink control information (DCI), performed by a terminal (user equipment, UE), comprising:
determining a mode (UE detects multiple DCI formats associated with different DCI formats scrambled by different RNTIs (e.g. C-RNTI, G-RNTI). Because different DCI formats and RNTIs correspond to different DCI payload sizes, the UE determines which category of DCI applies when monitoring and decoding a control channel. Based on this determination, the UE applies an appropriate DCI size alignment procedure when the number of different DCI sizes exceeds a threshold [0041]) for aligning a payload of a first DCI with a payload of one of second DCIs according to a classification mode of a size of the first DCI, wherein the first DCI is configured to schedule a multicast-broadcast scheduling (MBS) service, and the second DCI is configured to schedule a service other than the MBS service (the BS may determine a size of a first DCI format, which may be DCI format 1_0 with G-RNTI, where G-RNTI is used in a point to many transmission scheme. The BS may determine a size of a second DCI format, which may be DCI format 1_0 with a CRC scrambled by a C-RNTI, which is used in a point to point transmission scheme. Because the sizes of DCIs are determined prior to transmission, the system classifies the DCIs based on their respective sizes. When the size of the first DCI format differs from that of the second format, the base station performs a DCI size alignment to align the size of the first DCI format with that of the second before transmission [0025-0026, 0111-0114]).
Regarding claim 51, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth for claim 1, including a processor and a memory storing a computer program (an apparatus, which may be a base station side apparatus, has at least one processor coupled to a computer-readable medium, which may store computer executable instructions. Storing of computer executable instructions within a computer-readable medium inherently means the computer-readable medium contains a memory [0126-0128]), as taught by Lei.
Regarding claim 52, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth for claim 20, including a communication device comprising: a processor, and a memory storing a computer program (an apparatus, which may be a communication device (e.g., a UE), has at least one processor coupled to a computer-readable medium, which may store computer executable instructions. Storing of computer executable instructions within a computer-readable medium inherently means the computer-readable medium contains a memory [0126-0128]), as taught by Lei.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 6, 7, 21, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei in view of Wang et al (US 20230049535 A1, hereinafter "Wang").
Regarding claim 4, Lei does not teach wherein aligning the payload of the first DCI with the payload of one of the second DCIs according to the classification mode of the size of the first DCI comprises:
determining that the classification mode of the size of the first DCI is classifying the first DCI as a DCI scrambled by a radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) other than a cell radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI), and
aligning the payload of the first DCI with a payload of a second DCI scrambled by the RNTI other than the C-RNTI.
In analogous art, Wang teaches wherein aligning the payload of the first DCI with the payload of one of the second DCIs according to the classification mode of the size of the first DCI comprises:
determining that the classification mode of the size of the first DCI is classifying the first DCI as a DCI scrambled by a radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) other than a cell radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI) (The DCI format M_0 is with CRC scrambled by a G-RMTI included in multicast configuration [0170]), and
aligning the payload of the first DCI with a payload of a second DCI scrambled by the RNTI other than the C-RNTI (in order to align the sizes of a DCI format M_0 (with CRC scrambled by a G-RMTI) and a DCI format 1_0 in CSS (with a CRC scrambled by a RMTI), zeros may be padded or bits in the FDRA field may be truncated in order to make the size of DCI format M_0 match that of DCI format 1_0. DCI format 1_0 may be with CRC scrambled by CS-RNTI, MCS-C-RNTI, P-RNTI, SI-RNTI, RA-RNTI, MsgB-RNTI, or TC-RNTI [0061-0109, 170, 198]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the classification of the first DCI and aligning the first DCI with a second DCI (as taught by Wang) into the network device aligning DCIs (as taught by Lei) in order to improve system efficiency and user experience through the implementation of broadcast/multicast scheduling, improving resource efficiency through gNB scheduling, and reducing complexity at the terminal (UE) (Wang, [0132, 0134, 0139]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lei and Wang, specifically Wang, teaches wherein aligning the payload of the first DCI with the payload of the second DCI scrambled by the RNTI other than the C-RNTI comprises:
determining a size of a frequency-domain resource allocation (FDRA) field in the first DCI according to a number of resource blocks (RBs) contained in a control resource set (CORESET) # 0 (if a cell is configured with CORESET 0 with 24 physical resource blocks (PRBs), 48 PRBs, or 96 PRBs, the length of the FDRA field of DCI format 1_0 may be 9 bits, 11 bits, and 13 bits, respectively [0199], or a number of RBs contained in an initial downlink (DL) bandwidth portion (BWP); and
determining that the payload of the first DCI is different from the payload of the second DCI scrambled by the RNTI other than the C-RNTI, and aligning the payload of the first DCI with the payload of the second DCI scrambled by the RNTI other than the C-RNTI (aligning the sizes of a DCI format M_0 (multicast format) and a DCI format 1_0 in CSS (unicast format) is dependent on whether the size of DCI format M_0 is (i) less than the size of DCI format 1_0, or (ii) greater than the size of DCI format 1_0 (aligning is unnecessary if the DCI formats are the same size) and will implement (i) zeros may be padded or (ii) bits in the FDRA field may be truncated in order to make the size of DCI format M_0 match that of DCI format 1_0 [0198]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sizing of FDRA based on a number of PRBs in the CORESET #0, the classification of the first DCI and aligning the first DCI with a second DCI (as taught by Wang) into the network device aligning DCIs (as taught by Lei) in order to improve system efficiency and user experience through the implementation of broadcast/multicast scheduling, improving resource efficiency through gNB scheduling, and reducing complexity at the terminal (UE) (Wang, [0132, 0134, 0139]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lei and Wang, specifically Wang, teaches wherein aligning the payload of the first DCI with the payload of the second DCI scrambled by the RNTI other than the C-RNTI comprises at least one of:
determining that the payload of the first DCI is smaller than the payload of the second DCI scrambled by the RNTI other than the C-RNTI, and adding a padding bit to the first DCI;
determining that the payload of the first DCI is smaller than the payload of the second DCI scrambled by the RNTI other than the C-RNTI, and adding an appended bit after all effective information fields of the first DCI; or
determining that the payload of the first DCI is greater than the payload of the second DCI scrambled by the RNTI other than the C-RNTI, and performing truncation on the first DCI (To align the sizes of a DCI format M_0 (with CRC scrambled by a G-RMTI) and a DCI format 1_0 in CSS (with a CRC scrambled by a RMTI) when the size of DCI format M_0 is greater than the size of DCI format 1_0, bits in the FDRA field (of DCI format M_0) may be truncated in order to make the size of DCI format M_0 match that of DCI format 1_0 [198]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the classification of the first DCI and aligning the first DCI with a second DCI, truncating the first DCI if it is larger than the second DCI (as taught by Wang) into the network device aligning DCIs (as taught by Lei) in order to improve system efficiency and user experience through the implementation of broadcast/multicast scheduling, improving resource efficiency through gNB scheduling, and reducing complexity at the terminal (UE) (Wang, [0132, 0134, 0139]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lei and Wang, specifically Wang, teaches wherein performing the truncation on the first DCI comprises: performing the truncation on the FDRA field of the first DCI (bits in the FDRA field (of DCI format M_0) may be truncated in order to make the size of DCI format M_0 match that of DCI format 1_0 [198]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the classification of the first DCI and aligning the first DCI with a second DCI, truncating the first DCI if it is larger than the second DCI (as taught by Wang) into the network device aligning DCIs (as taught by Lei) in order to improve system efficiency and user experience through the implementation of broadcast/multicast scheduling, improving resource efficiency through gNB scheduling, and reducing complexity at the terminal (UE) (Wang, [0132, 0134, 0139]).
Regarding claim 21, Lei does not teach wherein determining the mode for aligning the payload of the first DCI with the payload of one of the second DCIs according to the classification mode of the size of the first DCI comprises one of:
determining that the classification mode of the size of the first DCI is classifying the first DCI as a DCI scrambled by a cell-radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI), and determining to align the payload of the first DCI with a payload of a second DCI transmitted in a common search space (CSS);
determining that the classification mode of the size of the first DCI is classifying the first DCI as a DCI scrambled by a C-RNTI, and determining to align the payload of the first DCI with a payload of a second DCI transmitted in a user equipment (UE)-specific search space (USS);
determining that the classification mode of the size of the first DCI is classifying the first DCI as a DCI scrambled by a C-RNTI, and determining a second DCI aligned with the first DCI according a format of the first DCI; or
determining that the classification mode of the size of the first DCI is classifying the first DCI as a DCI scrambled by a radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) other than the C-RNTI, and determining to align the payload of the first DCI with a payload of a second DCI scrambled by the RNTI other than the C-RNTI.
In analogous art, Wang teaches wherein determining the mode for aligning the payload of the first DCI with the payload of one of the second DCIs according to the classification mode of the size of the first DCI comprises one of:
determining that the classification mode of the size of the first DCI is classifying the first DCI as a DCI scrambled by a cell-radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI), and determining to align the payload of the first DCI with a payload of a second DCI transmitted in a common search space (CSS);
determining that the classification mode of the size of the first DCI is classifying the first DCI as a DCI scrambled by a C-RNTI, and determining to align the payload of the first DCI with a payload of a second DCI transmitted in a user equipment (UE)-specific search space (USS);
determining that the classification mode of the size of the first DCI is classifying the first DCI as a DCI scrambled by a C-RNTI, and determining a second DCI aligned with the first DCI according a format of the first DCI; or
determining that the classification mode of the size of the first DCI is classifying the first DCI as a DCI scrambled by a radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) other than the C-RNTI (The DCI format M_0 is with CRC scrambled by a G-RMTI included in multicast configuration [0170]), and determining to align the payload of the first DCI with a payload of a second DCI scrambled by the RNTI other than the C-RNTI (To align the sizes of a DCI format M_0 (with CRC scrambled by a G-RMTI) and a DCI format 1_0 in CSS (with a CRC scrambled by a RMTI), zeros may be padded or bits in the FDRA field may be truncated in order to make the size of DCI format M_0 match that of DCI format 1_0. DCI format 1_0 may be with CRC scrambled by CS-RNTI, MCS-C-RNTI, P-RNTI, SI-RNTI, RA-RNTI, MsgB-RNTI, or TC-RNTI [0061-0109, 170, 198]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the classification of the first DCI and aligning the first DCI with a second DCI, truncating the first DCI if it is larger than the second DCI (as taught by Wang) into the terminal aligning DCIs (as taught by Lei) in order to improve system efficiency and user experience through the implementation of broadcast/multicast scheduling and improving resource efficiency through gNB scheduling (Wang, [0132, 0134, 0139]).
Regarding claim 22, the combination Lei and Wang, specifically Lei, teaches wherein determining the second DCI aligned with the first DCI according the format of the first DCI comprises one of:
determining that the format of the first DCI is format 1_0 (a first DCI format is DCI format 1_0 with a CRC scrambled by a G-RNTI [0043]), and determining that the second DCI whose payload is aligned with the payload of the first DCI is a second DCI scrambled by the RNTI other than the C-RNTI (when the total number of different DCI sizes (classified as C-RNTI scrambled) exceeds “3” for the serving cell, additional DCI size alignment may be performed to align the size of DCI format 1_0 with the CRC scrambled by different RNTIs [0041]);
determining that the format of the first DCI is format 1_1 or format 1_2, and a current cell is configured with a second DCI having a same format as the first DCI, and determining that the second DCI whose payload is aligned with the payload of the first DCI is a second DCI scrambled by the C-RNTI; or
determining that the format of the first DCI is format 1_1 or format 1 2, and the current cell is not configured with a second DCI with a same format as the first DCI, and determining that the second DCI whose payload is aligned with the payload of the first DCI is a specified second DCI, wherein the specified second DCI is a DCI in format 1_1 or format 1_2.
Claim(s) 8, 10, 23, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lei and Wang, in view of Kittichokechai et al (US 20210160035 A1, hereinafter “Kittichokechai”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lei and Wang, specifically Lei, teaches comprising one of:
determining that the number of RBs contained in the CORESET #0 is greater than a number of RBs contained in a common frequency resource (CFR), and determining FDRA information according to N highest bits or N lowest bits in the first DCI;
determining that the number of RBs contained in the initial DL BWP is greater than the number of RBs contained in the CFR, and determining the FDRA information according to the N highest bits or the N lowest bits in the first DCI, wherein N is a positive integer;
determining that the number of RBs contained in the CORESET #0 is less than a number of RBs contained in a CFR, and scaling a frequency-domain scheduling granularity of the first DCI; or
determining that the number of RBs contained in the initial DL BWP is less than the number of RBs contained in the CFR (the number of RBs within the CFR is larger than that within the initial DL BWP [0065]), and;
The combination of Lei and Wang does not teach scaling the frequency-domain scheduling granularity of the first DCI.
In analogous art, Kittichokechai teaches scaling the frequency-domain scheduling granularity of the first DCI (a DCI size alignment uses a Resource Block Group size scaling factor to align the DCI size with another DCI format size [0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the scaling of the first DCI resource blocks (as taught by Kittichokechai) into the network device aligning DCIs (as taught by the combination of Lei and Wang) in order to reduce latency and error rates, thereby providing benefits including improved user experience and extended battery life through improved efficiency (Kittichokechai, [0171]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Lei, Wang, and Kittichokechai, specifically Kittichokechai, teach wherein scaling the frequency-domain scheduling granularity of the first DCI comprises one of:
determining a scaling factor according to a ratio of the number of RBs contained in the CFR to the number of RBs contained in the CORESET #0; or
determining a scaling factor according to a ratio of the number of RBs contained in the CFR to the number of RBs contained in the DL BWP (the size of the DCI formats depends on size of initial BWP. Parameters for frequency-domain resource allocation is based on number of resource blocks in BWP and a scaling factor of M, where the number of possible starting positions S_R = N_BWP_size / M. The scaling factor M is selected such that the reduction in size of the frequency-domain resource allocation fields satisfies a required amount of bit reduction [0058, 0064, 0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the scaling of the first DCI resource blocks (as taught by Kittichokechai) into the network device aligning DCIs (as taught by the combination of Lei and Wang) in order to reduce latency and error rates, thereby providing benefits including improved user experience and extended battery life through improved efficiency (Kittichokechai, [0171]).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Lei and Wang, specifically Lei, teaches determining that in a case where the number of RBs contained in the initial DL BWP is less than the number of RBs contained in the CFR (the number of RBs within the CFR is larger than that within the initial DL BWP [0065]), and;
The combination of Lei and Wang does not teach scaling a frequency-domain scheduling granularity of the first DCI.
In analogous art, Kittichokechai teaches scaling a frequency-domain scheduling granularity of the first DCI (a DCI size alignment uses a Resource Block Group size scaling factor to align the DCI size with another DCI format size [0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the scaling of the first DCI resource blocks (as taught by Kittichokechai) into terminal aligning DCIs (as taught by the combination of Lei and Wang) in order to reduce latency and error rates, thereby providing benefits including improved user experience and extended battery life through improved efficiency (Kittichokechai, [0171]).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Lei, Wang, and Kittichokechai, specifically Kittichokechai, teach wherein scaling the frequency-domain scheduling granularity of the first DCI comprises one of:
determining a scaling factor according to a ratio of the number of RBs contained in the CFR to the number of RBs contained in the CORESET #0; or
determining a scaling factor according to a ratio of the number of RBs contained in the CFR to the number of RBs contained in the DL BWP (the size of the DCI formats depends on size of initial BWP. Parameters for frequency-domain resource allocation is based on number of resource blocks in BWP and a scaling factor of M, where the number of possible starting positions S_R = N_BWP_size / M. The scaling factor M is selected such that the reduction in size of the frequency-domain resource allocation fields satisfies a required amount of bit reduction [0058, 0064, 0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the scaling of the first DCI resource blocks (as taught by Kittichokechai) into terminal aligning DCIs (as taught by the combination of Lei and Wang) in order to reduce latency and error rates, thereby providing benefits including improved user experience and extended battery life through improved efficiency (Kittichokechai, [0171]).
Claim(s) 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei in view of Kittichokechai et al (US 20210160035 A1, hereinafter “Kittichokechai”).
Regarding claim 13, Lei teaches further comprising one of:
determining that the number of RBs contained in the CORESET #0 is greater than a number of RBs contained in a CFR, or that the number of RBs contained in the initial DL BWP is greater than the number of RBs contained in the CFR, and determining FDRA information according to N highest bits or N lowest bits in the first DCI, wherein N is a positive integer; or
determining that the number of RBs contained in the CORESET #0 is less than the number of RBs contained in the CFR, or that the number of RBs contained in the initial DL BWP is less than the number of RBs contained in the CFR ( the number of RBs within the CFR is larger than that within the initial DL BWP [0065]), and;
Lei does not teach scaling a frequency-domain scheduling granularity of the first DCI.
In analogous art, Kittichokechai teaches scaling the frequency-domain scheduling granularity of the first DCI (a DCI size alignment uses a Resource Block Group size scaling factor to align the DCI size with another DCI format size [0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the scaling of the first DCI resource blocks (as taught by Kittichokechai) into the network device aligning DCIs (as taught by Lei) in order to reduce latency and error rates, thereby providing benefits including improved user experience and extended battery life through improved efficiency (Kittichokechai, [0171]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Lei and Kittichokechai, specifically Kittichokechai, teach wherein scaling the frequency-domain scheduling granularity of the first DCI comprises one of:
determining a scaling factor according to a ratio of the number of RBs contained in the CFR to the number of RBs contained in the CORESET #0; or
determining a scaling factor according to a ratio of the number of RBs contained in the CFR to the number of RBs contained in the DL BWP (the size of the DCI formats depends on size of initial BWP. Parameters for frequency-domain resource allocation is based on number of resource blocks in BWP and a scaling factor of M, where the number of possible starting positions S_R = N_BWP_size / M. The scaling factor M is selected such that the reduction in size of the frequency-domain resource allocation fields satisfies a required amount of bit reduction [0058, 0064, 0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the scaling of the first DCI resource blocks (as taught by Kittichokechai) into the network device aligning DCIs (as taught by Lei) in order to reduce latency and error rates, thereby providing benefits including improved user experience and extended battery life through improved efficiency (Kittichokechai, [0171]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Abdoli et al (US 20190313378 A1) discloses a method and system for downlink control information payload size determination.
Fang et al (US 20250294521 A1) discloses systems and methods for reducing UE power.
Salah et al (US 20200328840 A1) discloses a Method And Apparatus For Downlink Control Information Size Alignment In Mobile Communications.
Takeda et al (US 20220039103 A1) discloses Multicast Downlink Control Information Configuration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALESSANDRA R WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3579. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 4:30 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, UN C CHO can be reached at (571)272-7919 EST. 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.
/A.R.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 2413
/UN C CHO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2413