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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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) 1-4, 7-11, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by MA et al (US 2023/0114058).
Regarding claim 1, 8, 15, MA et al (US 2023/0114058) A user device comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the user device at least to:
determine a repetition pattern associated with repetitions of a physical downlink control channel, PDCCH, transmission, wherein the repetition pattern is configured in at least one slot in one or more frames (MA: Fig. 28, Fig. 3, ¶124-127, ¶278-279, ¶103, UE determines a repetition resource set which is for PDCCH transmission; the repetition is configured in at least one slot in a frame);
monitor the repetitions of the PDCCH transmission based on the repetition pattern (MA: Fig. 28, Fig. 3, Fig. 9, ¶131, ¶144, monitor the PDCCH repetitions of the PDCCH); and
decode control information based on at least one monitored repetition of the repetitions of the PDCCH transmission (MA: Fig. 28, Fig. 3, Fig. 9, ¶131, ¶133, ¶282, the decoding of the PDCCH transmissions is based on the monitored repetition PDCCH).
Regarding claim 2, 9, 16 MA et al (US 2023/0114058) discloses the user device of claim 1, wherein the repetition pattern is determined based on at least one of: a repetition factor, a starting symbol number, a starting slot number, a starting frame number, a slot offset value, a frame offset value, or an index of a synchronization signal block, SSB, beam (MA: ¶131, starting slot number to determine the repetition pattern).
Regarding claim 3, 10, 17, MA et al (US 2023/0114058) discloses user device of claim 2, wherein the at least one slot has at least one slot number, wherein the at least one slot number comprises at least one of: a first slot number indicating the starting slot number for the repetitions of the PDCCH transmission, or a second slot number with the slot offset value with respect to the first slot number (MA: ¶131, ¶125, the slot number includes a starting slot number to determine the repetition pattern).
Regarding claim 4, 11, 18, MA et al (US 2023/0114058) discloses user device of claim 3, wherein the repetition pattern is configured in slots having at least one of the first or second slot number in the one or more frames (MA: Fig. 3, ¶103, ¶125-127, ¶131, each pattern is indicated using a first or second slot number e.g. starting slot number within a frame).
Regarding claim 7, 14, MA et al (US 2023/0114058) discloses user device of claim 3, wherein the first slot number is predefined (MA: Fig. 3, ¶124, first slot is defined by the base station (network node) for the UE).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5-6, 12-13, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MA et al (US 2023/0114058) in view of TAKAHASHI et al (US 2023/0362956).
Regarding claim 5, 12, 19 MA et al (US 2023/0114058) discloses user device of claim 3, wherein the repetition pattern is configured in a slot having the first or second slot number (MA: Fig. 3, ¶127, ¶103, ¶131, first or second slot in a subframe of a frame, pattern 310, the one or more frames have at least a first slot number and a duration in units of slots).
MA remains silent regarding the slot having a first or second slot number in each of the one or more frames.
However, TAKAHASHI et al (US 2023/0362956) discloses a first or second slot number in each of the one or more frames (TAKAHASHI: ¶88, ¶65, the slot number is indicated for each of the one or more frame).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of MA would have been motivated to use the teachings of TAKAHASHI as it provides a way to minimize control information and lower overhead. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of MA with teachings of TAKAHASHI in order to improve a signaling of pattern with lower granularity and lower overhead.
Regarding claim 6, 13, 20, MA modified by TAKAHASHI discloses user device of claim 5, wherein the repetition pattern is configured in at least one symbol of the slot having the first or second slot number (MA: Fig. 10, ¶146, ¶103, ¶126, symbol of the slot; TAKAHASHI: ¶103-104, ¶109, Fig. 7, a symbol in a slot having a slot number).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of MA would have been motivated to use the teachings of TAKAHASHI as it provides a way to minimize control information and lower overhead. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of MA with teachings of TAKAHASHI in order to improve a signaling of pattern with lower granularity and lower overhead.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Document C discloses methods and systems are provided in which a UE transmits sidelink (SL) control information comprising a scheduling assignment (SA) indicating an SL transmission resource for a SL data transmission to a target UE. The SL transmission resource is based on one or more occupied SL resources identified by the UE and the SL transmission resource includes resources for an initial transmission and one or more retransmissions. The UE then transmits the SL data transmission using the SL transmission resource according to the transmitted SL control information. This is done without receiving, in a downlink control information (DCI), a grant of communication resources.
Document U discloses that non-coherent transmission from multiple transmission-reception-points (TRPs), i.e., base stations, or base station panels to a user equipment (UE) is exploited in 5G New Radio (NR) to improve downlink reliability and cell-edge throughput. Ultra reliable low-latency communications (URLLC) and enhanced Mobile BroadBand (eMBB) are prominent target use-cases for multi-TRP or multi-panel transmissions. In Third-Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Release 17 specifications, multi-TRP-based transmissions were specified for the physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) specifically to enhance its reliability and robustness. In this work, a comprehensive account of various multi-TRP reliability enhancement schemes applicable for the 5G NR PDCCH, including the ones supported by the 3GPP Release 17 specifications, is provided. The impact of the specifications for each scheme, UE and network complexity and their utility in various use-cases is studied. Their error performances are evaluated via link-level simulations using the evaluation criteria agreed in the 3GPP proceedings. The 3GPP-supported multi-TRP PDCCH repetition schemes, and the additionally proposed PDCCH repetition and diversity schemes are shown to be effective in improving 5G NR PDCCH reliability and combating link blockage in mmWave scenarios. The link-level simulations also provide insights for the implementation of the decoding schemes for the PDCCH enhancements under different channel conditions. Analysis of the performance, complexity and implementation constraints of the proposed PDCCH transmission schemes indicate their suitability to UEs with reduced-capability or stricter memory constraints and flexible network scheduling.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMER S MIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7524. The examiner can normally be reached M,T,W,Th: 10a-7p, Fri, 9a-12p.
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 D 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.
OMER S. MIAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2461
/OMER S MIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights