DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
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.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. In particular, this Application is the national stage application of an international application that claim foreign priority to a Chinese application filed on 14 Sept. 2021.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements, submitted on 13 Mar 2024, 11 Feb 2025, and 22 Aug 2025, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9, 11, 12, and 19-21 are not subject to an art rejection and therefore may be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In particular, Li is now cited for teaching a slot-level scheduling granularity instead of Shao’s symbol-level scheduling granularity.
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 1-4, 15-18, 22, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Shao (US 20220086832) in view of Li (US 20230015843).
Regarding claims 1 and 22, Shao teaches a method executed by a user equipment, UE, and a UE comprises a processor and a memory; wherein the memory is configured to store computer instructions; the processor is configured to read the computer instructions (Shao, ¶232 and figure 7 – elements of a terminal device) and perform following operations:
determining whether an Extend Cyclic Prefix, ECP slot indication is valid for a slot carrying a Synchronous Signaling Block, SSB, according to an instruction from a network side device (Shao, ¶¶85 108 – four consecutive symbol locations need to be downlink for the slot format to be used for SSB [i.e. valid], where the slot format [indicated by an index] provided by the network device is used to perform both uplink and downlink transmissions);
determining whether an ECP slot . . . for a preset time unit length is sent from the network side device according to a determination result of whether the ECP slot indication is valid for the slot carrying the SSB and the ECP slot indication. Shao, ¶¶118, 126 (slot format index indicates which symbols of a slot that include an extended cyclic prefix are downlink and which symbols are uplink/flexible); Shao, ¶160 (table 8 provides an example of a preset length of 12 symbols used for an ECP slot in contrast to, for example, table 4, which provides 14 symbols in a NCP slot).
Shao does not explicitly teach an ECP indication that “correspond[s] to” a plurality of slots (i.e. the claimed “all slots corresponding to the ECP slot indication”).1 Instead, each “slot format index” of Shao corresponds to a single slot with 12 symbols. Shao, ¶160 (e.g. table 8). However, Li teaches a UE determining which slots are associated with an SSB and not transmitting in those slots (i.e. finding those slots invalid for use). Li, figure 6 (“actual slots used for repetitions according to RAR UL grant” skips slots associated with SSB#2 and SSB#3). In one example, the duration of Li’s slot offset configuration is six slots. Li, figures 5 and 6 (slot offset indication results in the scheduling of 6 slots with two slots not being used for uplink transmission). At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to implement a slot-based scheduling granularity, as taught by Li, in place of the symbol-based scheduling granularity, as taught by Shao, in order to enable the network to provide a group indication for unusable slots. Li, ¶89 (“slot offset group indication”). By using a group-based slot index, multiple slots can be associated with the same index, which is more efficient that Shao’s slot index, which applies to only one slot. Li, figure 7 (slots 0-3 share an indicator and slots 4-7 share a second indicator).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Shao and Li also teaches in response to receiving a higher layer signaling comprising configuration information from the network side device, determining whether the ECP slot indication is valid for the slot carrying the SSB according to the configuration information. Shao, ¶¶106, 111, 114 (network device sends slot format index to terminal device); Shao, ¶¶107, 112, 117 (the slot format for the extended cyclic prefix may include symbols for downlink transmission, which make them valid for SSB transmission).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Shao and Li also teaches in response to receiving a higher layer signaling not comprising configuration information from the network side device, determining whether the ECP slot indication is valid for the slot carrying the SSB based on a default rule; wherein the default rule is that the ECP slot indication is valid for the slot carrying the SSB, or the ECP slot indication is invalid for the slot carrying the SSB. Shao, ¶¶108, 118 (the slot format of the ECP needs to have symbol locations designated for downlink to meet the SSB requirement [i.e. the slot format is valid or invalid based on its ability to accommodate a SSB transmission]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Shao and Li also teaches for any preset time unit length, determining whether a total quantity of sub-indications in the ECP slot indication for the preset time unit length is greater than a first preset quantity (Shao, ¶79 – each SSB occupies four symbols, therefore a valid slot format must have four consecutive downlink symbols to be valid; Shao, ¶160 – see table 8 for examples of a slot format index having symbol indexes [i.e. sub-indications], where at least 4 consecutive downlink symbols are available);
wherein the sub-indication is configured to indicate whether a corresponding slot is the ECP slot (Shao, ¶160 – 4 consecutive symbol indexes of “D” indicates that the slot format supports SSB transmission);
in response to the total quantity of sub-indications in the ECP slot indication for the preset time unit length being greater than the first preset quantity, determining that the ECP slot indication is valid for the slot carrying the SSB (Shao, ¶¶79, 160 – 4 consecutive symbol indexes of “D” indicates that the slot format supports SSB transmission);
in response to the total quantity of sub-indications in the ECP slot indication for the preset time unit length not being greater than the first preset quantity, determining that the ECP slot indication is invalid for the slot carrying the SSB. Shao, ¶79 (any slot with fewer than four consecutive downlink symbols cannot support SSB transmission and therefore is considered invalid).
Regarding claims 15 and 29, the combination of Shao and Li teaches a method and a network side device, comprises a processor and a memory (Shao, figure 9 and ¶258 – components of network device); wherein the memory stores computer instructions; the processor is configured to read the computer instructions and perform the method comprising:
sending an ECP slot indication which is for a preset time unit length to a User Equipment, UE, according to whether the ECP slot indication is valid for a slot carrying a Synchronous Signaling Block, SSB. Shao, figure 3 (step s220); Shao, ¶¶85 108 (four consecutive symbol locations need to be downlink for the slot format to be used for SSB [i.e. valid], where the slot format [indicated by an index] provided by the network device is used to perform both uplink and downlink transmissions); Shao, ¶196 (network device configures the terminal device to determine a slot format of an extended cyclic prefix).
Regarding claim 16, The combination of Shao and Li also teaches
sending a higher layer signaling comprising configuration information to the UE (Shao, ¶110 and figure 3 - step s220);
wherein the configuration information indicates that the ECP slot indication is valid for the slot carrying the SSB (Shao, ¶¶160, 162 – the slot format indicated by the transmitted slot format index ensures SSB transmission); or the configuration information indicates that the ECP slot indication is invalid for the slot carrying the SSB.
Regarding claim 17, The combination of Shao and Li also teaches sending a higher layer signaling not comprising configuration information to the UE (Shao, ¶199 – higher layer signaling used to provide on an index [i.e. not individual symbol indices]), and the higher layer signaling not comprising the configuration information is configured to instruct the UE to determine whether the ECP slot indication is valid for the slot carrying the SSB based on a default rule (Shao, ¶¶156-157 – the slot format index provides a slot configuration that can accommodate an SSB transmission [i.e. a valid slot]); wherein the default rule is that the ECP slot indication is valid for the slot carrying the SSB, or the ECP slot indication is invalid for the slot carrying the SSB. Shao, ¶160, table 8 (all slot formats provide can carry a SSB transmission by having at least four consecutive downlink symbols).
Regarding claim 18, The combination of Shao and Li also teaches in response to that the ECP slot indication is valid for the slot carrying the SSB, configuring the ECP slot indication in such a way that a total quantity of sub-indications in the ECP slot indication is greater than a first preset quantity (Shao, ¶79 – each SSB occupies four symbols, therefore a valid slot format must have four consecutive downlink symbols to be valid; Shao, ¶160 – see table 8 for examples of a slot format index having symbol indexes [i.e. sub-indications], where at least 4 consecutive downlink symbols are available);
in response to that the ECP slot indication is invalid for the slot carrying the SSB, configuring the ECP slot indication in such a way that the total quantity of sub-indications is not greater than the first preset quantity (Shao, ¶79 – any slot that lacks four consecutive downlink symbols cannot be used to transmit an SSB);
wherein the sub-indication is configured to indicate whether a corresponding slot is the ECP slot. (Shao, ¶160 – 4 consecutive symbol indexes of “D” indicates that the slot format supports SSB transmission).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, includes paragraphs 114 and 133 of Hwang, which teaches a number of slots per subframe based on SCS when using an extended cyclic prefix and transmitting a sidelink SSB.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN S LAMONT whose telephone number is (571)270-7514 and email address is benjamin.lamont@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am to 3pm 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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/Benjamin Lamont/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
1 If “all slots” is interpreted to include a single slot, then Shao would anticipate the claimed invention.
Prosecution Insights