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 .
Priority
This application is a CON of PCT/CN2021/140634 filed on 12/22/2021.
The present application does not claim for foreign priority.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 6/21/2024 and 3/19/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 6-10, 12, and 15-20 are objected because of the following informalities:
In claims 1, 10, 19, and 20, it is suggested to amend to read as follows for clarity:
1. (Currently Amended) A processing method, comprising
receiving configuration information and scheduling information on at least one carrier of M carriers; and
determining, according to the configuration information and the scheduling information, a scheduling manner of
10. (Currently Amended) A processing method, comprising
sending configuration information and scheduling information on at least one carrier of M carriers, wherein the configuration information and the scheduling information are used to determine a scheduling manner of and wherein M is a positive integer greater than or equal to 1.
19. (Currently Amended) A communication device, comprising:
a memory and
[[the]] a processor execute the program instructions stored in the memory, thereby causing the communication device to perform the method of claim 1.
20. (Currently Amended) A non-transitory computer-readable storage mediumstoring program instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method of claim 1.
In claims 3 and 12, the list of recited elements following the phrase “at least one of” omits the conjunction “and” or “or” before the final listed element. A proper conjunction should be added before the final listed element.
In claims 6 and 15, it is suggested to replace “RBGs” (in line 4) with “Resource Block Groups (RBGs)” for its first use of the acronym and for clarity.
In claims 7 and 16, the conjunction “and/or” is used between the listed limitations following the transitional phrase “comprises:”. The use of “and/or” is ambiguous and it is not preferred claim drafting practice. Applicant is required to amend the claim to clearly recite the intended relationship between the listed limitations (e.g., by using “and”, “or”, or “at least one of … and …” as appropriated. The comma after “and/or” is unnecessary.
In claims 8 and 17, it is suggested to amend to read as follows for clarity:
“The method according to claim …, wherein the scheduling manner comprises at least one of the following:
the frequency domain resource is a starting resource block and available resource block size within a bandwidth indicated in frequency domain resource assignment information;
the time domain resource is a starting symbol position and a time domain symbol duration indicated in time domain resource assignment information;
the modulation scheme is a modulation scheme indicated by a modulation and coding scheme;
the transport block size is a size indicated by the modulation and coding scheme; or
the redundancy version is a redundancy version identifier for the transport block transmitted on a corresponding carrier.”
In claims 9 and 18, it is suggested to amend to read as follows for clarity:
“The method according to claim …, wherein the redundancy version identifier [[of]] for each carrier comprises at least one of the following:
a number of bits for the redundancy version identifier of [[the]] each carrier is 0, and the redundancy version of the transport block transmitted on the corresponding carrier is 0;
a number of bits for the redundancy version identifier of [[the]] each carrier is 1, and the redundancy version of the transport block transmitted on the corresponding carrier is 0 or 3; or
a number of bits for the redundancy version identifier of [[the]] each carrier is 2, and the redundancy version of the transport block transmitted on the corresponding carrier is any one of 0, 1, 2, and 3.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 10:
Claims 1 and 10 recite a limitation “the transport block” (in line 5 of claim 1 and in line 4 of claim 10). There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 2 and 11:
Claims 2 and 11 rare unclear how the conjunctions apply. It is unclear whether the claim requires only the configuration information, only the scheduling information, both the configuration information and the scheduling information, or either the configuration information or the scheduling information. It is suggested to amend to read:
“The method according to claim …, wherein:
the configuration information comprises at least one of frequency points and bandwidths of the carrier; and
the scheduling information is carried in downlink control information.”
Regarding claims 4, 5, 13, and 14:
Claims 4, 5, 13, and 14 fail to clearly set forth the relationship between the listed limitations. Specifically, the recited limitations are presented in a series without a conjunction (e.g., “and” or “or”) indicating whether the limitations are cumulative or alternative. Consequently, it is unclear how the listed limitations are related, and the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Regarding claims 3, 6-9, 12, and 15-20:
Claims 3, 6-9, 12, and 15-20 are also rejected because they are directly or indirectly dependent upon the rejected claim, as set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 20:
Claims 7 and 16 are directed to “A computer readable storage medium”, which is non-statutory (such as transitory forms of signal) unless claimed as “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computer programs …”. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346,1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) and Interim Examination Instructions Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p.2.
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 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)(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.
Claims 1-4, 10-13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yi et al. (EP 3913845 B1, hereinafter Yi).
Regarding claim 1:
Yi teaches a processing method (see, Yi: Fig. 24), comprising the following steps:
receiving configuration information and scheduling information on at least one carrier of M carriers (see, Yi: para. [0218], “The base station 2404 may transmit one or more configuration messages 2412 (e.g., one or more RRC messages). The one or more RRC messages messages may comprise one or more configuration parameters indicating multi-carrier scheduling. DCI for multi-carrier scheduling may comprise resource assignments for a plurality of carriers/cells.”);
determining, according to the configuration information and the scheduling information, a scheduling manner of the transport block transmitted on the M carriers (see, Yi: para. [0222], “The DCI 2420 may comprise one or more frequency domain resource assignment fields.”; para. [0223], “The DCI 2420 may comprise one or more time domain resource assignment fields.”; para. [0224], “The DCI 2420 may comprise one or more frequency hopping fields.”, wherein the scheduling manner is the frequency domain and time domain assignments and wherein the scheduling manner is also based on the configuration parameters indicating multi-carrier scheduling.), wherein M is a positive integer greater than or equal to 1 (This is implicit in multi-carrier configuration and scheduling.).
Regarding claim 2:
As discussed above, Yi teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Yi further teaches wherein: the configuration information comprises frequency points and/or bandwidths of the carrier (see, Yi: para. [0222], “The DCI 2420 may comprise a first frequency domain resource assignment field and a second frequency domain resource assignment field. The first frequency domain resource assignment field may indicate first resource(s) of the first uplink carrier 2428 in frequency domain. The second frequency domain resource assignment field may indicate a second resource of the second uplink carrier 2432 in frequency domain. The first frequency domain resource assignment field may indicate an entry of one or more frequency domain resource allocation lists. The entry may comprise a first field indicating first resource(s) of the first uplink carrier 2428 and a second field indicating second resource(s) of the second uplink carrier 2432. An entry of the one or more frequency domain resource allocation lists may comprise a plurality of fields/sub-entries. Each field/sub-entry may correspond to an uplink carrier.”; para. [0227], “A base station may configure a first uplink configuration (e.g., UplinkConfig). The first uplink configuration may comprise configuration parameters related to an uplink carrier. The first uplink configuration may be configured in a serving cell configuration (e.g., ServingCellConfig). The serving cell configuration may comprise configuration parameters associated with a cell. The serving cell configuration may comprise parameters associated with a downlink carrier and the uplink carrier. The base station may configure a second uplink configuration for a supplemental uplink carrier of the cell. The base station may configure a second uplink configuration, for example, if the supplemental uplink carrier is present. An uplink configuration may comprise parameters associated with an initial uplink BWP (e.g., initialUplinkBWP), one or more uplink BWPs, a BWP indicator/index of a first active uplink BWP for a secondary cell (e.g., firstActiveUplinkBWP-Id), configuration parameters related to PUSCH transmissions, configuration parameter(s) related to SRS carrier switching, bandwidth information of an uplink carrier based on a specific subcarrier spacing for each subcarrier spacing supported by the uplink carrier (e.g., a set of {uplink bandwidth, a subcarrier spacing}), a blind decoding scaling factor (e.g., bdFactorR), one or more CRS late matching patterns, one or more parameters related to uplink beams, etc.”); and/or, the scheduling information is carried in downlink control information (see, Yi: para. [0222], “The DCI 2420 may comprise one or more frequency domain resource assignment fields.”).
Regarding claim 3:
As discussed above, Yi teaches all limitations in claim 2.
Yi further teaches wherein the scheduling information (see, Yi: Fig. 18) comprises at least one of the following: frequency domain resource assignment information (see, Yi: para. [0222], “The DCI 2420 may comprise one or more frequency domain resource assignment fields.”); time domain resource assignment information (see, Yi: para. [0223], “The DCI 2420 may comprise one or more time domain resource assignment fields.”);
modulation and coding scheme (see, Yi: para. [0174], “an MCS field 1820”);
redundancy version information (see, Yi: para. [0174], “an RV field 1824”);
carrier indicator (see, Yi: para. [0174], “a carrier indicator field 1804”).
Regarding claim 4:
As discussed above, Yi teaches all limitations in claim 3.
Yi further teaches wherein: the frequency domain resource assignment information is used to indicate frequency domain resources of the transport block transmitted on the M carriers, or used to indicate frequency domain resources for transmission on the at least one carrier; the time domain resource assignment information is used to indicate time domain resources of the transport block transmitted on the M carriers, or used to indicate the time domain resources for transmission on the at least one carrier; the modulation and coding scheme is used to indicate the modulation and coding scheme of the transport block transmitted on the M carriers, or used to indicate the modulation and coding scheme for transmission on the at least one carrier; the redundancy version information is used to indicate redundancy versions of the transport block transmitted on the M carriers, or used to indicate redundancy versions for transmission on the at least one carrier; the carrier indicator is used to indicate carriers corresponding to the scheduling information included in the downlink control information; wherein the M carriers comprise the at least one carrier (see, Yi: Fig. 18; para. [0174], “FIG. 18 shows an example DCI format. The example DCI format may correspond to DCI format 1_1 (or any other DCI format). The example DCI format may be used to schedule a downlink resource (e.g., for a PDSCH transmission) for a scheduled downlink cell. The example DCI format may comprise one or more DCI fields. The one or more DCI fields may comprise one or more of: a DL/UL indicator/identifier field 1802 for the DCI formats (e.g., indicating whether the DCI is for scheduling a DL transmission or an UL transmission, indicating whether the DCI is based on a first DCI format for uplink transmission (e.g., FIG. 17) or a second DCI format for downlink transmission (e.g., FIG. 18)), a carrier indicator field 1804, a BWP indicator/index field 1806, a frequency domain RA field 1808, a time domain RA field 1810, a virtual resource block to physical resource block mapping (VRB-PRB) field 1812, a physical resource block (PRB) bundling size indicator (PRB bundle) field 1814, a rate matching indicator field 1816, a zero power CSI-RS (ZP-CSI) field 1818, an MCS field 1820, an NDI field 1822, an RV field 1824, a HARQ process number field 1826, a DAI field 1828, a TPC command field 1830 (e.g., indicating a TPC command for a PUCCH transmission), a PUCCH resource indicator (PUCCH-RI) field 1832, a PDSCH-to-HARQ feedback timing indicator field1834, an antenna ports field 1836, a TCI field 1838, a SRS request field 1840, a CBGTI field 1842, a CBG flushing out information (CBGFI) field 1844, a DMRS sequence initialization field 1846, a priority indicator field 1848, and/or a minimum applicable scheduling offset indicator field 1850. One or more of the fields of FIG. 18 may perform functions as described with reference to similarly named fields of FIG. 17.”; para. [0218] [0222-0224]).
Regarding claim 10:
Claim 10 recites the processing method from the perspective of a network device (see, Yi: Fig. 24, Base Station 2404) which corresponds to the method of claim 1, and contains no additional limitations. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected by applying the same rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11:
Claim 11 is directed towards the method according to claim 10 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 2. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 12:
Claim 12 is directed towards the method according to claim 11 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 3. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 13:
Claim 13 is directed towards the method according to claim 12 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 4. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 is directed towards a communication device (see, Yi: Fig. 24, Wireless Device 2408; Fig. 15A, Wireless Device 1502), comprising: a memory (see, Yi: Fig. 15A, Memory 1524) and a processor (see, Yi: Fig. 15A, Processing System 1518); wherein the memory is configured to store program instructions; the processor is configured to perform the processing method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 19 is directed towards a computer readable storage medium (see, Yi: Fig. 15A, Memory 1524), having computer programs stored thereon; wherein when the computer programs are executed, the processing method according to claim 1 is implemented. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 5, 7-9, 14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi in view of Lenovo, Motorola Mobility (“Discussion on multi-cell PDSCH scheduling via a single DCI”, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #105-e, R1-2104868, May 10-27, 2021, hereinafter Lenovo).
Regarding claim 5:
As discussed above, Yi teaches all limitations in claim 4.
Yi does not explicitly teach wherein: when the frequency domain resource assignment information is used to indicate the frequency domain resources of the transport block transmitted on the M carriers, a number of frequency domain resource indication bits of the M carriers is a product of a number of frequency domain resource indication bits of each carrier and M; when the time domain resource assignment information is used to indicate the time domain resources of the transport block transmitted on the M carriers, a number of time domain resource indication bits of the M carriers is related to M; when the modulation and coding scheme is used to indicate the modulation and coding scheme of the transport block transmitted on the M carriers, a number of modulation and coding scheme indication bits of the M carriers is a product of a number of modulation and coding scheme indication bits of each carrier and M; when the redundancy version information is used to indicate the redundancy versions of the transport block transmitted on the M carriers, a number of redundancy version identifiers of the M carriers is a product of a number of redundancy version identifiers of each carrier and M; in a case that the downlink control information includes the scheduling information of at least two carriers, the carrier indicator is also used to indicate an order of the scheduling information of the at least two carriers.
In the same field of endeavor, Lenovo teaches wherein:
when the frequency domain resource assignment information is used to indicate the frequency domain resources of the transport block transmitted on the M carriers, a number of frequency domain resource indication bits of the M carriers is a product of a number of frequency domain resource indication bits of each carrier and M; when the time domain resource assignment information is used to indicate the time domain resources of the transport block transmitted on the M carriers, a number of time domain resource indication bits of the M carriers is related to M; when the modulation and coding scheme is used to indicate the modulation and coding scheme of the transport block transmitted on the M carriers, a number of modulation and coding scheme indication bits of the M carriers is a product of a number of modulation and coding scheme indication bits of each carrier and M; when the redundancy version information is used to indicate the redundancy versions of the transport block transmitted on the M carriers, a number of redundancy version identifiers of the M carriers is a product of a number of redundancy version identifiers of each carrier and M; in a case that the downlink control information includes the scheduling information of at least two carriers, the carrier indicator is also used to indicate an order of the scheduling information of the at least two carriers (see, Lenovo: Section 2.1 Two-cell scheduling via a single DCI, “A single DCI supporting scheduling two carriers can also support scheduling of one carrier, and the differentiation between single carrier or two carrier scheduling can be based on indicated CIF value. As scheduling two carrier (CA) with a single DCI is typically associated with large data transmission, the following can be considered to further reduce the DCI payload size (with the bit savings used for indication of the needed separate fields for the two carriers (e.g., MCS, NDI, RV, HARQ ID):” and Table 1, which depicts that the size of fields, including Frequency domain resource assignment, Time domain resource assignment, Modulation and Coding scheme, and Redundancy Version, doubles for the case of scheduling two carriers.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Yi in combination of the teachings of Lenovo in order to save DCI bit overhead by scheduling multi-cell PDSCH via a single DCI (see, Lenovo: Section 2.1 and Observation 1.).
Regarding claim 7:
As discussed above, Yi in view of Lenovo teaches all limitations in claim 5.
Yi further teaches wherein the determining, according to the configuration information and the scheduling information, the scheduling manner of the transport block transmitted on the M carriers comprises:
determining, according to the scheduling information and the configuration information, frequency domain resources of the transport block transmitted on the M carriers (see, Yi: para. [0221], “The wireless device 2408 may determine the first starting PRB of the first PUSCH transmission 2436-1 based on a frequency domain resource assignment field of the DCI 2420. The wireless device 2408 may determine the second starting PRB of the second PUSCH transmission 2436-2 based on the first starting PRB and a frequency hopping offset. The configuration parameters may comprise the frequency hopping offset.”); and/or,
determining, according to the scheduling information, at least one of time domain resources, modulation schemes, transport block sizes, and redundancy versions of the transport block transmitted on the M carriers (see, Yi: para. [0223], “The DCI 2420 may comprise one or more time domain resource assignment fields. The DCI 2420 may comprise a first time domain resource assignment field and a second time domain resource assignment field. The first time domain resource assignment field may indicate first resource(s) of the first uplink carrier 2428 in time domain. The second time domain resource assignment field may indicate second resource(s) of the second uplink 2432 carrier in time domain. The first time domain resource assignment field may indicate an entry of one or more time domain resource allocation lists. The entry may comprise a first field indicating first resource(s) of the first uplink carrier 2428 and a second field indicating second resource(s) of the second uplink carrier 2432. An entry of the one or more time domain resource allocation lists may comprise a plurality of fields/sub-entries. Each field/sub-entry may correspond to an uplink carrier.”; para. [0170], “A redundancy version (RV) field 1722 may indicate one or more RV values (e.g., an RV value may be 0, 2, 3, or 1) for one or more PUSCH transmissions scheduled via the one or more slots of the scheduled cells. A single RV value may be indicated, for example, if the DCI schedules a single PUSCH transmission via one slot. Two RV values may be indicated, for example, if the DCI schedules two PUSCH transmissions via two slots. A quantity of PUSCH transmissions scheduled by DCI may be indicated in a time domain resource allocation list of the one or more time domain resource allocation lists.”).
Regarding claim 8:
As discussed above, Yi in view of Lenovo teaches all limitations in claim 7.
Yi further teaches wherein the scheduling manner meets at least one of the following: the frequency domain resource is a starting resource block and available resource block size within a bandwidth indicated in frequency domain resource assignment information (see, Yi: para. [0221], “The wireless device 2408 may determine the first starting PRB of the first PUSCH transmission 2436-1 based on a frequency domain resource assignment field of the DCI 2420. The wireless device 2408 may determine the second starting PRB of the second PUSCH transmission 2436-2 based on the first starting PRB and a frequency hopping offset. The configuration parameters may comprise the frequency hopping offset.”; para. [0272], “The wireless device may determine a first starting PRB of a PUSCH transmission in the first slot of the first uplink carrier 2704 based on a frequency domain resource assignment field indicated by scheduling DCI or parameters (e.g., startingPRB) for a PUCCH transmission. The wireless device may determine a second starting PRB of a second PUSCH transmission in a second slot of the second uplink carrier 2708 based on the frequency domain resource assignment field or parameters (e.g., CUL-startingPRB) for the PUCCH transmission.”); the time domain resource is a starting symbol position and a time domain symbol duration indicated in time domain resource assignment information (see, Yi: para. [0270], “The wireless device may determine a first duration of the first part (e.g., first portion, first hop) of the PUSCH transmission based on a duration (e.g., d1) indicated by a time domain resource assignment field of the scheduling DCI. The wireless device may determine a first duration of the first part of the PUCCH transmission based on a duration (e.g., d1) corresponding to a quantity of OFDM symbols (e.g., nrofSymbols) indicated by a PUCCH configuration (e.g., PUCCH-Config) or corresponding to a PUCCH resource.”); the modulation scheme is a modulation scheme indicated by modulation and coding scheme (see, Yi: para. [0170], “An MCS field may indicate a coding rate and a modulation scheme for the scheduled uplink data.”); the transport block size is a size indicated by the modulation and coding scheme (see, Yi: para. [0270], “The wireless device may determine a transport block size (TBS) based on the first resource and the second resource. The wireless device may determine the TBS based on the first resource and the second resource, for example, if the wireless device is configured with non-simultaneous transmission via the first uplink carrier and the second uplink carrier. The wireless device may determine the TBS based on the first resource, for example, if simultaneous transmission is enabled/configured.”); the redundancy version is redundancy version identifier of the transport block in a corresponding carrier indicated in redundancy version information (see, Yi: para. [0170], “A redundancy version (RV) field 1722 may indicate one or more RV values (e.g., an RV value may be 0, 2, 3, or 1) for one or more PUSCH transmissions scheduled via the one or more slots of the scheduled cells. A single RV value may be indicated, for example, if the DCI schedules a single PUSCH transmission via one slot. Two RV values may be indicated, for example, if the DCI schedules two PUSCH transmissions via two slots. A quantity of PUSCH transmissions scheduled by DCI may be indicated in a time domain resource allocation list of the one or more time domain resource allocation lists.”).
Regarding claim 9:
As discussed above, Yi in view of Lenovo teaches all limitations in claim 7.
Yi in view of Lenovo further teaches wherein the redundancy version identifier of each carrier meets at least one of the following:
a number of bits for the redundancy version identifier of the each carrier is 0, and the redundancy version of the transport block transmitted on the corresponding carrier is 0;
a number of bits for the redundancy version identifier of the each carrier is 1, and the redundancy version of the transport block transmitted on the corresponding carrier is 0 or 3;
a number of bits for the redundancy version identifier of the each carrier is 2 (see, Lenovo: Table 1, Redundancy version, 2 bits), and the redundancy version of the transport block transmitted on the corresponding carrier is any one of 0, 1, 2 and 3 (see, Yi: para. [0170], “A redundancy version (RV) field 1722 may indicate one or more RV values (e.g., an RV value may be 0, 2, 3, or 1) for one or more PUSCH transmissions scheduled via the one or more slots of the scheduled cells. A single RV value may be indicated, for example, if the DCI schedules a single PUSCH transmission via one slot. Two RV values may be indicated, for example, if the DCI schedules two PUSCH transmissions via two slots. A quantity of PUSCH transmissions scheduled by DCI may be indicated in a time domain resource allocation list of the one or more time domain resource allocation lists.”).
Regarding claim 14:
Claim 14 is directed towards the method according to claim 13 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 5. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 is directed towards the method according to claim 14 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 7. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 is directed towards the method according to claim 16 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 8. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 is directed towards the method according to claim 17 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 9. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 9 above.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi in view of Lenovo further in view of Li et al. (EP 4149188 A1, hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 6:
As discussed above, Yi in view of Lenovo teaches all limitations in claim 5.
Yi in view of Lenovo does not explicitly teach wherein frequency domain resource assignment type is type 0, a number of bits occupied by the frequency domain resource assignment information is sumj {NRBGj}; wherein NRBGj is the number of RBGs included in a jth carrier among the M carriers, j is greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to M, M is a number of carriers carried by the scheduling information, and sumj {NRBGj} is a sum of a number of RBGs included in the carriers carried by the scheduling information.
In the same field of endeavor, Li teaches wherein frequency domain resource assignment type is type 0, a number of bits occupied by the frequency domain resource assignment information is sumj {NRBGj}; wherein NRBGj is the number of RBGs included in a jth carrier among the M carriers, j is greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to M, M is a number of carriers carried by the scheduling information, and sumj {NRBGj} is a sum of a number of RBGs included in the carriers carried by the scheduling information (see, Li: para. [0067], “For example, an RBG size is determined according to a total RB quantity of the plurality of carriers, cells, or BWPs scheduled by using the first DCI or according to an RB quantity of each carrier, cell, or BWP, and Type 0 frequency domain resource allocation of each carrier, cell, or BWP is indicated according to the RBG size, or Type 0 frequency domain resource allocation of the plurality of carriers, cells, or BWPs is jointly indicated.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Yi in view of Lenovo in combination of the teachings of Li in order to determine the size of resource block group (RBG) (see, Li: para. [0067]).
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 is directed towards the method according to claim 14 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 6. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 6 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JI-HAE YEA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3310. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI, 7am-3pm, ET.
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, SUJOY K KUNDU can be reached on (571) 272-8586. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JI-HAE YEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights