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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 149 of the Specification, which recites in part, “otherwise, configuring an ECP indication in which a the total quantity of sub-indications is not greater than the first preset quantity,” needs corrected by deleting the “a.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Multiple claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Several claims (e.g. claims 1, 8, and 22) lack a conjunction, such as “and” or “or” before its last limitation. For the sake of compact prosecution, an “and” is interpreted as conjoining the limitations of each claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Potentially 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, assuming the claim objections and indefiniteness rejections are overcome.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
All claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C12, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, in part, “an ECP slot within a preset unit length” and claim 15 recites, in part, “an ECP slot for a preset unit length.” It is unclear what “unit” the ECP slot must either fall “within” (i.e. claim 1) or be used “for” (i.e. claim 15). The breadth of “unit” is so great as to render the claim indefinite because nearly anything could be interpreted as a “unit.” Additionally, claims 1 and 15 seem to use the term differently. In claim 1, the ECP slot seems to be a subset of the preset unit length, while in claim 15, the ECP slot seems to have a duration of a preset unit length. This inconsistent use of the same claim terms adds to the confusion.
Claim 20 seems to imply that the present unit length is related to “a sequence of . . . slots.” Claim 20, lines 7 and 10-11. However, claim 20 uses the term “according,” which is relative, when claiming the sequence of slots. See claim 20:10-11 (“preset unit length according to a sequence of the all slots within the preset unit length”). As a result, the claimed invention of claim 20 is also indefinite.
All other claims are indefinite due to their dependence upon an indefinite claim.
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.
Claims 1-4, 15-18, 22, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shao (US 20220086832).
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 an ECP slot within a preset unit length 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).
Regarding claim 2, Shao 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, Shao 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, Shao also teaches for any preset unit length, determining whether a total quantity of sub-indications in the ECP slot indication for the preset 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 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 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, Shao 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 for a preset 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, Shao 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, Shao 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, Shao 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.
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