CTNF 18/708,731 CTNF 85254 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 15-17, 21-27, 33 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Lenovo & Motorola Mobility (3GPP R1-211952), hereinafter Lenovo . With respect to Claim 15, Lenovo teaches a method by an Integrated and Access Backhaul (JAB) node (Page 1, section 1, “In this paper, we provide our views on specification of resource multiplexing enhancements for simultaneous IAB-MT/IAB-DU operations in eIAB systems.”), the method comprising: receiving, from a parent IAB node, information indicating an availability indication, AI, for a time-domain multiplexing, TDM, resource configuration for an IAB- Distributed Unit, IAB-DU, cell associated with the IAB node (page 1, section 2.1, “Some companies expressed preference for avoiding overlapping configurations such that there is no ambiguity on what H/S/NA attributes (Rel-16/time or Rel-17/frequency) are used for resource management and availability indication (DCI 2-5) signalling. Some other companies prefer to avoid such restriction on configuration, but they suggest using one set of the H/S/NA attributes at a time, i.e., either Rel-16/time or Rel-17/frequency attributes” and page, 4, section 2.1, “Furthermore, DCI 2-5 for time and frequency domains may be transmitted separately, but applied jointly, similar to the principle explained for configurations.”) and receiving, from the parent JAB node, information indicating an AI for a frequency-domain multiplexing, FDM, resource configuration for the IAB-DU cell (page 1, section 2.1, “Some companies expressed preference for avoiding overlapping configurations such that there is no ambiguity on what H/S/NA attributes (Rel-16/time or Rel-17/frequency) are used for resource management and availability indication (DCI 2-5) signalling. Some other companies prefer to avoid such restriction on configuration, but they suggest using one set of the H/S/NA attributes at a time, i.e., either Rel-16/time or Rel-17/frequency attributes” and page, 4, section 2.1, “Furthermore, DCI 2-5 for time and frequency domains may be transmitted separately, but applied jointly, similar to the principle explained for configurations.”) With respect to Claim 16, Lenovo teaches the method of Claim 15, wherein: the information indicating the AI for the TDM resource configuration is received in a first message, and the information indicating the AI for the FDM resource configuration is received in a second message (page, 4, section 2.1, “Furthermore, DCI 2-5 for time and frequency domains may be transmitted separately, but applied jointly, similar to the principle explained for configurations.”) With respect to Claim 17, Lenovo teaches the method of Claim 16, wherein at least one of the first message and the second message are DCI format 2_5 (page 1, section 2.1, “Some companies expressed preference for avoiding overlapping configurations such that there is no ambiguity on what H/S/NA attributes (Rel-16/time or Rel-17/frequency) are used for resource management and availability indication (DCI 2-5) signalling.”) With respect to Claim 20, Lenovo teaches the method of Claim 15, wherein the information indicating the AI for the TDM resource configuration and the information indicating the AI for the FDM resource configuration is received in a single message page, 4, section 2.1, “Furthermore, DCI 2-5 for time and frequency domains may be transmitted separately, but applied jointly, similar to the principle explained for configurations.”) With respect to Claim 21, Lenovo teaches the method of Claim 15, wherein at least one resource associated with the TDM resource configuration or the FDM resource configuration is a soft resource (page 5, section 2.1, “The above specification works well for TDM between upstream and downstream communications – the IAB node receives explicit indication of availability of soft resources in a guaranteed manner, while it can still perform non-TDM multiplexing based on a best-effort approach.”) With respect to Claim 22, Lenovo teaches the method of Claim 21, comprising applying, at a slot, the TDM resource configuration or the FDM resource configuration to at the at least one resource (page 1, section 2.1, “An IAB node applies the frequency domain H/S/NA only if the IAB node is currently operating in a non-TDM multiplexing mode in the slot, otherwise the Rel-16 time domain H/S/NA configuration is applied.”) With respect to Claim 23, Lenovo teaches the method of Claim 15, comprising receiving, from a donor-Centralized Unit, donor-CU, a resource configuration of the IAB-DU cell, wherein the resource configuration comprises at least one of the TDM resource configuration and the FDM resource configuration (page 2, section 2.1, “Furthermore, separate application is a special case of joint application, e.g., IAB-CU may choose to configure IAB nodes with time- and frequency-domain H/S/NA on same slots for joint application, or alternatively, on separate slots for separate application.”) With respect to Claim 24, Lenovo teaches the method of Claim 23, comprising receiving, from the donor- Centralized Unit, donor-CU, configuration information associated with a sequence of slots, wherein the configuration information indicates whether each one of the sequence of slots is a hard resource, a soft resource, or a not available resource (page 3, section 2.1, “If the resource is indicated NA in at least one of time and frequency domains, the resource is considered NA. Otherwise, if a resource is indicated soft in at least one domain, the resource is considered soft. Finally, the resource is considered hard if indicated hard in both domains.”) With respect to Claim 25, Lenovo teaches the method of Claim 24, comprising: when a particular slot is configured as a TDM soft resource, reading a resourceAvailability value from a TDM resourceAvailability sequence of one or more TDM availability combinations, and/or when the particular slot is configured as a FDM soft resource, reading a resourceAvailability value from a FDM resourceAvailability sequence of one or more FDM availability combinations (page 2 – 4, “Extension of AvailabiltyCombination to include multiple RB sets in a resourceAvailabilty indication” and “The Rel-17 frequency domain H/S/NA configuration is provided across multiple slots and/or over a subset of slots only, with the same time-domain granularity and pattern duration as the Rel-16 H/S/NA configuration (i.e. gNB-DU Cell Resource Configuration (9.3.1.107 in TS 38.473 [8])).”) With respect to Claim 26, Lenovo teaches the method of Claim 15, comprising transmitting, to the parent IAB node, capability information indicating a resource multiplexing capability of the IAB node for the IAB-DU cell (page 2, section 2.1, “This working assumption suffers from a major issue: non-TDM is related to capability signaling; it is not defined as a mode of operation. The related capability signaling was introduced for IAB in Rel-16 such that the IAB-CU uses the capability information for configurations. In order to confirm the working assumption, RAN1 should first reach an agreement on a definition of non-TDM multiplexing mode.”) With respect to Claim 27, Lenovo teaches the method of Claim 15, comprising receiving, from the parent IAB node, at least one availabilityCombinations table, the at least one availabilityCombinations table comprising: at least one TDM availability combination for the IAB-DU cell; and/or at least one FDM availability combination for the IAB-DU cell. (page 4, section 2.1, “Extension of AvailabiltyCombination to include multiple RB sets in a resourceAvailabilty indication.”) With respect to Claim 32, Lenovo teaches the method of Claim 15, further comprising identifying at least one of a TDM Al index and/or a FDM Al index (page 5, section 2.1, “the IAB-MT detects a DCI format 2_5 with an AI index field value indicating the soft symbol as available.”) With respect to Claim 33, Lenovo teaches the method of Claim 15, comprising identifying a TDM resourceAvailability value and/or a FDM resourceAvailability value, and wherein the TDM resourceAvailability value and/or the FDM resourceAvailability value is based on FDM soft resource (page 4, section 2.1, “Extension of AvailabiltyCombination to include multiple RB sets in a resourceAvailabilty indication.”) With respect to Claim 36, the claim is the IAB node corresponding to the method of Claim 15 and is rejected accordingly . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenovo & Motorola Mobility (3GPP R1-211952), hereinafter Lenovo, in view of Liu et al. (U.S. 2019/0364600), hereinafter Liu With respect to Claim 18, Lenovo teaches the method of Claim 16, Lenovo fails to explicitly teach wherein the first message is received in a first downlink slot and the second message is received in a second downlink slot. Liu teaches wherein the first message is received in a first downlink slot and the second message is received in a second downlink slot (¶ 0079, “In this embodiment, the terminal device may further monitor a DCI format for multiple-slot scheduling if the multiple-slot scheduling is requested in the message 1 transmission, so as to obtain downlink control information and downlink data transmitted by the network.”) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Lenovo with the invention of Liu as Lenovo teaches multiple different DCI messages, it would be obvious to use multiple slots to convey the additional information. With respect to Claim 19, Lenovo teaches the method of Claim 15, Lenovo fails to explicitly teach comprising monitoring a first set of slots for the first message and monitoring a second set of slots for the second message. Liu teaches comprising monitoring a first set of slots for the first message and monitoring a second set of slots for the second message (¶ 0177, “In this embodiment, the terminal device may further monitor a DCI format for multiple-slot scheduling if the multiple-slot scheduling is requested in the message 1 transmission, so as to obtain downlink control information and downlink data transmitted by the network.”) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Lenovo with the invention of Liu as Lenovo teaches multiple different DCI messages, it would be obvious to use multiple slots to convey the additional information . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenovo & Motorola Mobility (3GPP R1-211952), hereinafter Lenovo, in view of Nokia & Nokia Shanghai Bell (3GPP R1-2110775), hereinafter Nokia . With respect to Claim 28, Lenovo teaches the method of Claim 15, wherein the Al for the TDM resource configuration comprises a first AI-RNTI and the Al for the FDM resource configuration comprises a second AI-RNTI Nokia teaches the Al for the TDM resource configuration comprises a first AI-RNTI and the Al for the FDM resource configuration comprises a second AI-RNTI (page 19, FFS: different field, RNTI or different DCI Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 30 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenovo & Motorola Mobility (3GPP R1-211952), hereinafter Lenovo, in view of Luo et al. (U.S. 2022/0322299), hereinafter Luo . With respect to Claim 30, Lenovo teaches the method of Claim 15, Lenovo fails to explicitly teach comprising deriving at least one of a TDM AvailabilityCombinationID and/or FDM AvailabilityCombinationID for the IAB-DU cell Luo teaches comprising deriving at least one of a TDM AvailabilityCombinationID and/or FDM AvailabilityCombinationID for the IAB-DU cels (¶ 0085, “For example, one code point in DCI2_5 that points to an AvailabilityCombinationId of the AvailabilityCombinationsPerCell table can select both availability pattern in time-domain and the associated applicable RB sets for a serving cell. For example, the availability combination may have a format similar to the following.”) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Luo with the invention of Lenovo as Lenovo is a 3GPP technical document which is designed to cover only the information that is to be discussed in standardization, it would be obvious to include additional technical detail to further complete the system of Lenovo. With respect to Claim 31, Lenovo teaches the method of Claim 30, Lenovo fails to explicitly teach further comprising identifying at least one of a TDM resourceAvailability sequence and/or a FDM resourceAvailability sequence based on a respective one of the TDM AvailabilityCombinationID and the FDM AvailabilityCombinationID. Luo teaches further comprising identifying at least one of a TDM resourceAvailability sequence and/or a FDM resourceAvailability sequence based on a respective one of the TDM AvailabilityCombinationID and the FDM AvailabilityCombinationID (¶ 0085, “For example, one code point in DCI2_5 that points to an AvailabilityCombinationId of the AvailabilityCombinationsPerCell table can select both availability pattern in time-domain and the associated applicable RB sets for a serving cell. For example, the availability combination may have a format similar to the following.”) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Luo with the invention of Lenovo as Lenovo is a 3GPP technical document which is designed to cover only the information that is to be discussed in standardization, it would be obvious to include additional technical detail to further complete the system of Lenovo. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 5PM. 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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 571-272-7952. 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. /ANGELA NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446 Application/Control Number: 18/708,731 Page 2 Art Unit: 2446 Application/Control Number: 18/708,731 Page 3 Art Unit: 2446 Application/Control Number: 18/708,731 Page 4 Art Unit: 2446 Application/Control Number: 18/708,731 Page 5 Art Unit: 2446 Application/Control Number: 18/708,731 Page 6 Art Unit: 2446 Application/Control Number: 18/708,731 Page 7 Art Unit: 2446 Application/Control Number: 18/708,731 Page 8 Art Unit: 2446 Application/Control Number: 18/708,731 Page 9 Art Unit: 2446 Application/Control Number: 18/708,731 Page 10 Art Unit: 2446 Application/Control Number: 18/708,731 Page 11 Art Unit: 2446
Prosecution Insights