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
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)(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.
(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, 3-6, 8-11, 14, 16, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumar et al (US 2019/0029031, “Kumar”).
Re claims 1 and 14, Kumar discloses a user equipment (UE)/ a processor receiving, from a network entity, a configuration for resource allocation comprising a set of orthogonal time-frequency resources and a set of non-orthogonal time-frequency resources (figure 8, step 802; paragraph [0116]); determining a set of time-frequency resources for reception of user data (paragraph [0118]); and de-mapping the determined set of time-frequency resources (paragraph [0119], identifying the allocated resources in the time-frequency for uplink transmission).
Re claim 3, Kumar discloses the determined set of time-frequency resources corresponds to a physical resource block (PRB) allocation level (figure 4; paragraph [0119]), a sub-PRB allocation level, a bandwidth part (BWP) allocation level, a carrier allocation level, or a combination thereof.
Re claims 4 and 16, Kumar discloses wherein the UE is part of a group of UEs, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to perform orthogonal multiple access (OMA), non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA), or rate split multiple access (RaSMA) (paragraph [0116]).
Re claim 5, Kumar discloses the resource allocation includes an OMA region and a NOMA region or RaSMA region, and wherein the OMA region and the NOMA region or RaSMA region are non-overlapping on a physical resource block (PRB) level or a sub-PRB level, wherein each region is identified based at least in part on an identifier (ID) (figure 4).
Re claims 6 and 9, Kumar discloses the resource allocation comprises: a first allocation of a contiguous set of physical resource blocks (PRBs) for OMA within a configured carrier; and a second allocation of a contiguous set of PRBs for NOMA or RaSMA within the configured carrier (figure 4).
Re claim 8, Kumar discloses the configuration indicates a division between OMA UEs and NOMA (figure 4) or RaSMA UEs in a spatial domain.
Re claim 10, Kumar discloses the first allocation of the contiguous set of PRBs is associated with a first type of bandwidth part; and the second allocation of the contiguous set of PRBs is associated with a second type of bandwidth part (paragraph [0038]).
Re claim 11, Kumar discloses the first type of bandwidth part, the second type of bandwidth part, or both corresponds to a specific numerology or radio access technology (paragraph [0036], TDMA, OFDMA).
Re claims 17 and 19, Kumar discloses a network entity determining a resource allocation for a group of user equipment (UEs) that perform orthogonal multiple access (OMA) or non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) or rate split multiple access (RaSMA) (paragraph [0117]); and transmitting, to a UE, a configuration for resource allocation that comprises: an orthogonal region of time-frequency resources; and a non-orthogonal region of the time-frequency resources (paragraph [0120]).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 2, 12, 13, 15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of Elshafie et al (US 2024/0195528, “Elshafie”).
Re claims 2 and 15, Kumar discloses all of the limitations of the base claim, but fails to disclose receiving common user data messages based on the set of non-orthogonal time-frequency resources and in accordance with a hybrid multiple access scheme; and receive private user data messages based on the set of non-orthogonal time-frequency resources and in accordance with a hybrid multiple access scheme. However, Elshafie discloses receiving common stream and private stream based on the set of non-orthogonal time-frequency resources and in accordance with a hybrid multiple access scheme (RSMA, paragraph [0087]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kumar with Elshafie for the benefit of enhancing user security, latency and performance by splitting data into common data and UE specific data.
Re claim 12, Kumar discloses all of the limitations of the base claim, but fails to disclose performing a downlink control information (DCI) decoding procedure comprising: first stage DCI that comprises hybrid multiple access information comprising at least a hybrid multiple access type indicator, and a second stage DCI that comprises scheduling information for decoding either a OMA user data message or NOMA user data message or RaSMA user data message or other multiple access type user data message. However, Elshafie discloses receiving DCI scheduling the PDSCH that carries RSMA messaging (paragraphs [0106 and [0117]]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kumar with Elshafie for the benefit of scheduling data transmissions/receptions based on the assigned resources indicated by DCI.
Re claims 13, 18 and 20, Kumar discloses all of the limitations of the base claim, but fails to disclose receiving/transmitting the configuration via downlink control information (DCI) signaling, radio resource control (RRC) signaling, medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) signaling, and combinations thereof. However, Elshafie discloses receiving configuration information via downlink control information (DCI) signaling, radio resource control (RRC) signaling, medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) signaling (paragraph [0129]]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kumar with Elshafie for the benefit of scheduling data transmissions/receptions by utilizing DCI, RRC, or MAC CE message.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of Xue et al (US 2018/0049203, “Xue”).
Re claim 7, Kumar discloses all of the limitations of the base claim, but fails to disclose a bitmap associated with resource block groups for OMA-supported UEs and NOMA-supported UEs or RaSMA-supported UEs, wherein the resource block groups may be contiguous or non-contiguous. However, Xue discloses using a bitmap to indicate which RBGs are allocated to a UE (paragraph [0172]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kumar with Xue for the benefit of providing efficient utilization of network resources by informing a UE with allocated resource block via bitmap.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hong Cho whose telephone number is 571-272-3087. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri during 8 am to 4 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on 571-272-3940. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/HONG S CHO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights