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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to Application # 18759803 filed 06/28/2024. Claims 1-20 are subject to examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 4-5, 16 and 19 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 and 16 recites “the PDSCH processing time”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations. It is suggested that claim 4 and 16 be amended to recite “a PDSCH processing time”.
Claim 5 recites “a PUCCH resource in a target slot to is not be multiplexed”. It is suggested that claim 4 be amended to recite “a PUCCH resource in a target slot [[to]] is not be multiplexed”.
Claim 19 recites “a of a PRACH transmission”. It is suggested that claim 4 be amended to recite “a transmission of a PRACH transmission”.
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.
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.
Claim 3-10, 15-16, and 19-20 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.
claim 3, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 19 recite one of the target times recited in Claim 2, 14, and 18 ( Claim 2, 14, and 18 recites “the target time related to communication comprises at least one of the following”). If one option considered for rejecting claim 2, 14, and 18, the others become optional. It is not clear to examiner if one option considered in claim 2, 14, and 18, then how claim 3, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 19 further narrow claim 2, 14, and 18.
Claim(s) 4-7, 16, and 20 are also rejected because they are dependent upon rejected claims 3, 15, and 19 as set forth above and include limitations of the claims 3, 15, and 19 respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6, 8, 11-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Claim 1-4, 9, and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al. (LEE hereinafter) (US 20230217498 A1) in view of YING et al. (YING hereinafter) (US 20230421310 A1).
Regarding claim 1, claim 13, and claim 17, LEE teaches, A method for determining a processing time, comprising:
when UE has a relaxed processing capability (LEE; A processing time table that is more relaxed than the processing time table of the current NR system may be defined for the RedCap UE, Par. 0139; the processing time required for the RedCap UE in the RA procedure may be configured/defined to be longer than the processing time required for the legacy UE, Par. 0083),
determining, based on the relaxed processing capability, a target time related to communication, wherein the relaxed processing capability is a processing capability that is relaxed in time (LEE; Processing Time Offsets Added to UE Processing Times N.SUB.1 and N.SUB.2 May Be Defined in Consideration of Capability of RedCap UE ... Maximum gap for Msg1 retransmission after RAR window or last symbol of PDSCH: (NT,1 + beta1) + 0.75 ms, Par. 0146-0148; When it is said that a BS performs (or does not perform) a specific operation, this may also be interpreted as that a UE expects/assumes (or does not expect/assume) that the BS performs the specific operation, Par. 0033).
Although LEE teaches in Proposal 3-1 that a new Table for UE Processing Times may Be Introduced in Consideration of Capability of RedCap UE, LEE failed to explicitly teach,
UE has been configured with or has enabled a relaxed processing capability.
However, in the same field of endeavor, YING teaches,
UE has been configured with or has enabled a relaxed processing capability (YING; a new table ... may be introduced for the relaxed PDSCH decoding time N.sub.1_relaxed. The value of N.sub.1_relaxed [symbols] may be larger than the value of N.sub.1 for PDSCH processing capability 1 and for PDSCH processing capability 2 ... Whether the new table is applied for the relaxed processing time or not may be RRC configured, Par. 0188).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of LEE to include the use of RRC as taught by YING in order to configure reduced capability UE feature (YING; Par. 0175).
Specifically for claim 13, LEE teaches, A UE, comprising: a memory storing computer-readable instructions; and a processor coupled to the memory, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising (LEE; the RedCap UE, Par. 0139).
Specifically for claim 17, LEE teaches, A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising (LEE; the RedCap UE, Par. 0139).
Regarding claim 2, claim 14, and claim 18, LEE- YING teaches, The method according to claim 1, The UE according to claim 13, and The non-transitory computer readable storage medium according to claim 17 respectively, wherein the target time related to communication comprises at least one of the following: a transmission time interval (LEE; Maximum gap for Msg1, Par. 0148), a transmission timing adjustment time, a switch time, an uplink transmission time, a downlink transmission time, and an expected transmission time.
Regarding claim 3, claim 15, and claim 19, LEE- YING teaches, The method according to claim 2, The UE according to claim 14, and The non-transitory computer readable storage medium according to claim 20 respectively, wherein the transmission time interval comprises at least one of the following:
a first maximum time between a last symbol of a Random Access Response (RAR) window and a Physical Random Access Channel (PRACH) transmission (LEE; Maximum gap for Msg1, Par. 0148); or
a second maximum time between receiving a last symbol of an RAR in a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) and the PRACH transmission.
Regarding claim 4, claim 16, and claim 20, LEE- YING teaches, The method according to claim 3, The UE according to claim 15, and The non-transitory computer readable storage medium according to claim 19 respectively,, wherein the UE send the PRACH no later than X milliseconds after the last symbol of the RAR window or the last symbol received in the PDSCH when required by an upper layer of the UE, wherein
X=NT,1+0.75+delta, where NT,1 corresponds to a symbol time of the PDSCH processing time of a UE processing capability, and delta is determined by a network side based on a UE capability configuration (LEE; Maximum gap for Msg1, Par. 0148), or a value of the delta is fixed in a protocol.
Regarding claim 9, LEE- YING teaches, The method according to claim 2, wherein the switch time comprises at least one of the following: a search space set switch time; or a bandwidth part (BWP) switch time (YING; an alternative relaxed UE PDSCH processing time d.sub.1,2,relaxed may be defined, provided and/or configured ... d.sub.1,2,relaxed may be determined by BWP switching time, Par. 0195).
The rational and motivation for adding this teaching of YING is the same as for Claim 1.
Claim 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE- YING and in further view of MA et al. (MA hereinafter) (US 20230319708 A1).
Regarding claim 5, LEE- YING teaches, The method according to claim 3.
LEE- YING failed to explicitly teach,
wherein when an actual reception time of a second Downlink Control Information (DCI) format for the PDCCH does not meet a second minimum time between the a symbol of the second DCI format in a PDCCH and a first symbol of a first resource transmitted on the PUCCH, a PUCCH resource in a target slot to is not be multiplexed with a Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request Acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) information corresponding to the second DCI format by the UE, and the target slot is a slot for the first resource.
However, in the same field of endeavor, MA teaches,
wherein when an actual reception time of a second Downlink Control Information (DCI) format for the PDCCH does not meet a second minimum time between the a symbol of the second DCI format in a PDCCH and a first symbol of a first resource transmitted on the PUCCH, a PUCCH resource in a target slot to is not be multiplexed with a Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request Acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) information corresponding to the second DCI format by the UE, and the target slot is a slot for the first resource (MA; the first time period is associated with the UE processing time and comprises ... a time duration between the last symbol of second downlink control information (DCI) which indicate a second resource of a PUCCH and the first symbol of a PUCCH resource which is indicated by first DCI and the wireless terminal multiplexes HARQ-ACK information corresponding to the second DCI format in, Par. 0018 [Note that if minimum time interval is not met, HARQ will not be multiplexed]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of LEE- YING to include the use of PDSCH processing time as taught by MA in order to calculate time interval for HARQ (MA; Par. 0018).
Regarding claim 7, LEE- YING teaches, The method according to claim 3.
LEE- YING failed to explicitly teach,
wherein a retransmitted PDSCH is not decoded by the UE when a time interval between a start symbol of an actual transmission time for the retransmitted PDSCH and a last symbol of a PDSCH earlier than the retransmitted PDSCH is less than a target time interval between the start symbol of the retransmitted PDSCH and the last symbol of the PDSCH earlier than the retransmitted PDSCH.
However, in the same field of endeavor, MA teaches,
wherein a retransmitted PDSCH is not decoded by the UE when a time interval between a start symbol of an actual transmission time for the retransmitted PDSCH and a last symbol of a PDSCH earlier than the retransmitted PDSCH is less than a target time interval between the start symbol of the retransmitted PDSCH and the last symbol of the PDSCH earlier than the retransmitted PDSCH (MA; the first time period is associated with the UE processing time and comprises ... the minimum time between the last symbol of a PDSCH … and a starting symbol of a re-transmission of a PDSCH before the PDSCH, Par. 0018 [Note that if minimum time interval is not met, PDSCH will not be decoded]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of LEE- YING to include the use of PDSCH processing time as taught by MA in order to calculate time interval for retransmission (MA; Par. 0018).
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE- YING and in further view of Su et al. (Su hereinafter) (US 20240188055 A1).
Regarding claim 10, LEE- YING teaches, The method according to claim 2, wherein the transmission timing adjustment time comprises (LEE; The RAR information transmitted on the PDSCH may include timing advance (TA) information for UL synchronization, Par. 0052).
LEE- YING failed to explicitly teach,
a slot n+k+1, wherein the UE receives a timing advance order in a receiving slot n and adjusts an uplink transmission timing in the slot n+k+1, where n and k are positive integers.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Su teaches,
a slot n+k+1, wherein the UE receives a timing advance order in a receiving slot n and adjusts an uplink transmission timing in the slot n+k+1, where n and k are positive integers (Su; if the UE receives a TA command in slot n, the new TA should apply from the beginning of the uplink slot n+k+1, where k=┌N.sub.slot.sup.subframe,μ.Math.(N.sub.T,1+N.sub.T,2+N.sub.TA,max+0.5)/T.sub.sf┐, Par. 0080 [Note that ┌ ┐is a ceiling command]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of LEE- YING to include the use of TA command as taught by Su in order to calculate next uplink slot (Su; Par. 0080).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art Zhou et al. (US 20220046714 A1) teaches in Par. 0322-0327 that “If requested by higher layers, the wireless device is expected to transmit a PRACH no later than N.sub.T,1+0.75 msec after the last symbol of the window, or the last symbol of the PDSCH reception, where N.sub.T,1 is a time duration of N.sub.1 symbols corresponding to a PDSCH processing time for wireless device processing capability 1 ... The wireless device may be a capability-reduced wireless device type”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARMIN CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-6419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Noel Beharry can be reached at 5712705630. 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.
/SHARMIN CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2416
Prosecution Insights