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/CN2023/075181 filed on 2/9/2023.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CHINA 202210135584.8 filed on 2/14/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 7/29/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 18, and 20 are objected because of the following informalities:
In claims 1, 18, and 20, it is suggested to amend to read as follows for clarity:
1. (Currently Amended) A data sending method, comprising:
performing, by a terminal, a first operation; and
in a case that the terminal is in an inactive state, sending, by the terminal to a network side device on a first bandwidth part (BWP) based on the first operation,
wherein the first BWP is an initial uplink BWP configured by [[a]] the network side device for a reduced capability terminal, and
wherein the first operation comprises at least one of the following:
determining a mapping relationship between a first synchronization signal block (SSB) and a configured grant physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH);
determining, based on a target object, whether a timing advance for the configured grant PUSCH is valid, wherein the target object comprises a second SSB or a target tracking reference signal; or
determining a target control resource set (CORESET) CORESET is a dedicated search space used for monitoring a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH).
18. (Currently Amended) A terminal, comprising:
a processor; and
a memorystoring a program or instructions that
perform
in a case that the terminal is in an inactive state, sending, by the terminal to a network side device on a first bandwidth part (BWP) based on the first operation,
wherein the first BWP is an initial uplink BWP configured by [[a]] the network side device for a reduced capability terminal, and
wherein, to perform the first operation, the program or the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the terminal to perform at least one of the following:
determining a mapping relationship between a first synchronization signal block (SSB) and a configured grant physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH);
determining, based on a target object, whether a timing advance for the configured grant PUSCH is valid, wherein the target object comprises a second SSB or a target tracking reference signal; or
determining a target control resource set (CORESET) CORESET is a dedicated search space used for monitoring a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH).
20. (Currently Amended) A network side device, comprising:
a processor; and
a memorystoring a program or instructions thatcause the network side device to perform the data receiving method according to claim 15.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
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 1-4 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agiwal et al. (US 2022/0022247 A1, hereinafter Agiwal) in view of Qualcomm Incorporated (“BW Reduction for RedCap UE”, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG1 Meeting #107-e, R1-2112223, Nov. 11-19, 2021, hereinafter Qualcomm).
Regarding claim 1:
Agiwal teaches a data sending method (see, Agiwal: Fig. 1 and para. [0096], “an example of small data transmission using pre-configured uplink grant (can also be referred as CG type 1 PUSCH resources)”), comprising:
performing, by a terminal (see, Agiwal: Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, UE), a first operation (see, Agiwal: comment below); and
sending, by the terminal in a case that the terminal is in an inactive state, target data (see, Agiwal: para. [0102] teaches that the preconfigured PUSCH configuration may be provided when an RRCRelease switches the UE to RRC_INACTIVE, and that the UE may continue to use the configured grant Type 1 during RRC_INACTIVE. Para. [0103] expressly teaches that, while the UE is in RRC_INACTIVE, SDT using preconfigured PUSCH resources in initiated. Para. [0107] teaches selecting an available UL grant corresponding to a selected SSB, and para. [0108] teaches generating a MAC PDU for the small data transmission and transmitting the MAC PDU in the selected UL grant.) on a first bandwidth part (BWP) based on the first operation (see, Agiwal: para. [0106] teaches that the UE uses preconfigured PUSCH resources for SDT on an UL BWP for small data transmission. Para. [0119] more specifically teaches that the preconfigured PUSCH resource configuration for SDT is applied to, or signaled for, the initial UL BWP. Para. [0120] likewise teaches that, if an applicable BWP is not otherwise informed, the preconfigured PUSCH resource configuration for SDT received in dedicated signaling is applied to the initial UL BWP.).
Agiwal does not explicitly teach wherein the first BWP is an initial uplink BWP configured by a network side device (see, Agiwal: Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, gNB) for a reduced capability terminal.
In the same field of endeavor, Qualcomm teaches wherein the first BWP is an initial uplink BWP configured by a network side device for a reduced capability terminal (see, Qualcomm: Section 1 teaches that “network can configure a separate initial UL BWP for RedCap UEs in SIB” and teaches that, in page 4, this initial UL BWP includes “PUSCH resources (msg3/msgA/SDT) applicable to the RedCap UE. It further teaches that the CD-SSB is used to configure the spatial relation of UL signals/channels transmitted in the initial UL BWP. Proposal 3 expressly refers to the “RedCap-specific initial UL BWP configured by SIB. Thus, Qualcomm expressly teaches an initial UL BWP configured by the network for a reduced-capability/RedCap terminal, and further teaches that this very BWP includes PUSCH resources for SDT.).
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 Agiwal in combination of the teachings of Qualcomm in order to implement Agiwal’s CG-PUSCH-based RRC_INACTIVE SDT procedure using the RedCap-specific initial UL BWP taught by Qualcomm (see, Qualcomm: Section 2.1).
Agiwal further teaches wherein the first operation comprises at least one of the following: mapping between a first synchronization signal block (SSB) and a configured grant physical uplink shared channel (see, Agiwal: para. [0096] identifies the preconfigured uplink grant as CG Type 1 PUSCH resources, and para. [0100] expressly states: “These PUSCH resources are also mapped to SSB(s).”. Para. [0106] further teaches selecting an SSB from the SSBs associated with the preconfigured PUSCH resources for SDT, and para. [0107] teaches selecting an available UL grant corresponding to that selected SSB from the preconfigured PUSCH resources. Para. [0126] teaches the association between SSBs and configured grants (PUSCH occasions/resource). Para. [0127] teaches that the configured grants are associated with SSBs in RRC_INACTIVE. Para. [0130] teaches signaling one or more SSB IDs associated with a grant/PUSCH resource configuration. Para. [0142] teaches that an UL grant/PUSCH occasion is associated with an SSB and that each US grant/PUSCH occasion can be mapped to one or more SSBs. Finally, para. [0146] expressly teaches that each grant configuration can be mapped to one SSB, with all UL grants/PUSCH occasions of the configured-grant configuration mapped to the same SSB.); determining, based on a target object, whether a timing advance used by the configured grant physical uplink shared channel is valid, wherein the target object is a second SSB or a target tracking reference signal; or determining a target control resource set used for sending the target data, wherein the target control resource set is a control resource set associated with dedicated search space used for monitoring a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH).
Regarding claim 2:
As discussed above, Agiwal in view of Qualcomm teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Qualcomm further teaches wherein the first SSB meets at least one of the following: the first SSB is a cell defining SSB or a non-cell defining SSB (see, Qualcomm: Proposal 5, “the SSB can be a CD-SSB or a NCD-SSB”); or the first SSB is determined according to a first preset rule (see, Qualcomm: Section 2.1.2, Initial BWP with CD-SSB and CORESET#0; Section 2.1.4, Minimizing Specification Impacts for Initial BWP without CD-SSB and CORESET#0; Also, see Proposal 6.).
Regarding claim 3:
As discussed above, Agiwal in view of Qualcomm teaches all limitations in claim 2.
Qualcomm further teaches wherein the first preset rule comprises at least one of the following:
determining the first SSB depending on whether the network side device configures to use a cell defining SSB (see, Qualcomm: Proposal 5, “To minimize the specification impacts of RACH and paging in the RedCap-specific initial BWP, the initial DL BWP of RedCap UE should include SSB and CORESET/CSS for RA and paging, wherein the SSB can be a CD-SSB or a NCD-SSB.”; Proposal 6, “RO applicable to RedCap UE is configured in the initial UL BWP of RedCap UE by SIB. • RO applicable to RedCap UE is associated with the CD-SSB or NCD-SSB transmitted in the initial DL BWP of RedCap UE.”);
determining the first SSB depending on whether the network side device configures to use a non-cell defining SSB (see, Qualcomm: Proposal 5, “To minimize the specification impacts of RACH and paging in the RedCap-specific initial BWP, the initial DL BWP of RedCap UE should include SSB and CORESET/CSS for RA and paging, wherein the SSB can be a CD-SSB or a NCD-SSB.”; Proposal 6, “RO applicable to RedCap UE is configured in the initial UL BWP of RedCap UE by SIB. • RO applicable to RedCap UE is associated with the CD-SSB or NCD-SSB transmitted in the initial DL BWP of RedCap UE.”);
determining the first SSB depending on whether the network side device configures a non-cell defining SSB on the first BWP (see, Qualcomm: Observation 9, “If a RedCap UE operates in an initial DL BWP without CD-SSB but is configured with CORESET/CSS for RA and/or paging, non-CD SSB should be transmitted in the initial DL BWP of RedCap UE.”); or
determining the first SSB depending on whether the network side device configures a first object on the first BWP, wherein the first object comprises at least one of the following: type 2 common search space (CSS), type 2A CSS, CSS for terminal monitoring in which a PDCCH scrambled by a paging-radio network temporary identifier is located, or CSS for terminal monitoring in which a PDCCH scrambled by a paging early indication-radio network temporary identifier is located (see, Qualcomm: Section 2.1.1, “an idle/inactive UE should be configured with Type2-PDCCH CSS set by pagingSearchSpace in PDCCH-ConfigCommon..”).
Regarding claim 4:
As discussed above, Agiwal in view of Qualcomm teaches all limitations in claim 3.
Qualcomm further teaches wherein in a case that the first preset rule comprises determining the first SSB depending on whether the network side device configures a non-cell defining SSB on the first BWP, the first SSB meets the following: in a case that the non-cell defining SSB is configured on the first BWP, the first SSB is the non-cell defining SSB; or in a case that the non-cell defining SSB is not configured on the first BWP, the first SSB is a cell defining SSB (see, Qualcomm: Observation 9 teaches use of NCD-SSB in the RedCap initial BWP where the BWP lacks CD-SSB. Proposal 5 expressly identifies CD-SSB and NCD-SSB as the alternative SSBs for the RedCap initial BWP. Additionally, Section 2.2.1 teaches that a RedCap UE operating in an RRC-configured BWP without CD-SSB should not retune to a wider BWP merely to obtain CD-SSB; instead NCD-SSB should be transmitted within the RedCap BWP. Proposal 13 expressly characterizes such retuning as undesirable/infeasible.).
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 Agiwal in combination of the teachings of Qualcomm in order to use the NCD-SSB when provided within the RedCap BWP and otherwise use the available CD-SSB. Doing so avoids precisely the returning and measurement-gap penalties identified by Qualcomm while allowing Agiwal’s SSB-asscociated CG-PUSCH procedure to operate (see, Qualcomm: Observation 9, Proposal 5, Section 2.2.1, and Proposal 13.
Regarding claim 11:
As discussed above, Agiwal in view of Qualcomm teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Qualcomm further teaches wherein the target control resource set meets at least one of the following: the target control resource set is determined based on a type of the terminal, and the type of the terminal comprises a non-reduced capability terminal and a reduced capability terminal (see, Qualcomm: Section 2.1.4, Observation 8 teaches a RedCap UE operating in an initial DL BWP without the ordinary MIB-configured CORESET#0 and states that RedCap complexity can be reduced by including an SSB and CORESET/CSS for paging within the RedCap initial BWP. Proposal 5 expressly proposes CORESET/CSS for RA and paging within the RedCap-specific initial BWP. Proposal 7 distinguishes the RedCap-specific initial BWP’s NCD-SSB/CORESET/CSS from ordinary CORESET#0 and teaches switching between them where necessary. Thus the applicable control-resource/search-space arrangement is selected according to whether the UE is operating under the ordinary/non-RedCap BWP configuration or the RedCap-specific BWP configuration.); or the target control resource set is determined based on a target BWP, and the target BWP is a BWP on which the terminal is located before radio resource control is released, wherein in a case that an index of a control resource set defined on the first BWP does not overlap with an index of a control resource set defined on a second BWP, the target control resource set is indicated by the network side device, and the second BWP is an initial uplink BWP configured by the network side device.
Regarding claim 12:
As discussed above, Agiwal in view of Qualcomm teaches all limitations in claim 11.
Qualcomm further teaches wherein in a case that the target control resource set is determined based on a type of the terminal, the target control resource set meets at least one of the following: in a case that the type of the terminal is a non-reduced capability terminal, the target control resource set is the control resource set defined on the second BWP; or in a case that the type of the terminal is a reduced capability terminal, the target control resource set is the control resource set defined on the second BWP or the control resource set defined on the first BWP (see, Qualcomm: For ordinary operation, Qualcomm identifies the MIB-configured initial BWP containing CORESET#0. For RedCap operation, Observation 8/Proposal 5 teaches a RedCap-specific initial BWP containing its own SSB and CORESET/CSS for RA/paging. Proposal 7 further demonstrates the distinction: the RedCap UE can operate using the NCD-SSB and CORESET/CSS in its RedCap-specific initial BWP and switch to ordinary CORESET#0 when required for SI.).
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 Agiwal in combination of the teachings of Qualcomm to recognize that a conventional UE uses the ordinary BWP/CORESET, whereas a RedCap US can use either that ordinary CORESET where accessible or the CORESET/CSS specifically placed within the RedCap BWP (see, Qualcomm: Observation 8, Proposal 5, and Proposal 7.).
Regarding claim 13:
As discussed above, Agiwal in view of Qualcomm teaches all limitations in claim 12.
Qualcomm further teaches wherein in a case that the type of the terminal is a reduced capability terminal, and the network side device configures the first BWP for the terminal, the target control resource set is the control resource set defined on the first BWP (see, Qualcomm: Observation 8 teaches reducing RedCap UE complexity by putting the SSB and CORESET/CSS for paging inside the RedCap initial BWP. Observation 9 and Proposal 5 similarly teach CORESET/CSS for RA/paing within the RedCap-specific initial BWP. Moreover, Qualcomm later teaches that pagingSearchSpace, searchSpaceSIB1, and searchSpaceOthersystemInformation associated with a non-zero CORESET can be configured on the common frequency region shared by the RRC-configured BWPs of RedCap UEs. Proposal 21 then has the RedCap UE monitor the paging CSS in that RRC-configured BWP rather than periodically switch to CORESET#0. Accordingly, once a separate ReCap BWP is configured, using the CORESET/search space located with that RedCap BWP is expressly suggested as a mechanism for avoiding unnecessary BWP switching and reducing RedCap complexity.).
Regarding claim 14:
As discussed above, Agiwal in view of Qualcomm teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Qualcomm further teaches wherein in a case that the terminal is a reduced capability terminal, and time division duplexing is used for a cell in which the terminal is located, transmission of data by the terminal meets any one of the following: in a data transmission process, the terminal does not expect radio frequency retuning; in a data transmission process, the terminal does not expect center frequencies of uplink sending and downlink reception to be inconsistent; or in a data transmission process, the terminal expects center frequencies of uplink sending and downlink reception to be consistent (see, Qualcomm: Observation 11, “Fast and frequent BWP/RF switching degrades the energy/spectral efficiency of UE and NW.”; Proposal 12, “When operating on non-initial BWP in TDD, a RedCap UE does not expect to receive a configuration with different center frequencies for DL and UL BWPs with the same BWP Id.” Section 2.1.4 expressly identifies the objective of aligning the center frequencies of initial DL/UL BWP in TDD. The preceding discussion explains that a RedCap-specific initial DL/UL BWP arrangement having different center frequencies requires an additional retuning gap in both DL-to-UL and UL-to-DL switching.).
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 Agiwal in combination of the teachings of Qualcomm in order to configure the corresponding DL/UL BWPs used for Agiwal’s RedCap CG-SDT with consistent center frequencies in order to avoid additional RF retuning and the resulting energy/spectral-efficiency and complexity penalties (see, Qualcomm: Observation 11, Proposal 12, and Section 2.1.4).
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 recites the data receiving method from the perspective of a network side device (see, Agiwal: Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, gNB) which corresponds to the method of claim 1, and contains no additional limitations. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected by applying the same rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 is directed towards the method according to claim 15 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 2. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 2 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 3. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 is directed towards a terminal (see, Agiwal: Fig. 4, Fig. 5, and Fig. 8; UE, terminal), comprising a processor (see, Agiwal: Fig. 8, Controller 820; para. [0283]) and a memory (see, Agiwal: Fig. 8, Memory 830; para. [0283]), wherein the memory stores a program or instructions that can run on the processor, where the program or the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the terminal to perform: the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 is directed towards the terminal according to claim 18 that is further limited to similar features to claim 2. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 is directed towards a network side device (see, Agiwal: Fig. 4, Fig. 5, and Fig. 9; gNB, base station), comprising a processor (see, Agiwal: Fig. 9, Controller 920; para. [0288]) and a memory (see, Agiwal: Fig. 9, Memory 930; para. [0288]), wherein the memory stores a program or instructions that can run on the processor, and the program or the instructions, when being executed by the processor, implement the steps of the data receiving method according to claim 15. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 15 above.
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agiwal in view of Tsai et al. (US 2021/0307055 A1, hereinafter, Tsai) further in view of Qualcomm.
Regarding claim 5:
As discussed above, Agiwal in view of Qualcomm teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Agiwal teaches CG-PUSCH-based SDT while the UE is RRC_INACTIVE (ses, Agiwal: para. [0096] [0103] [0106-0108]) and teaches applying the preconfigured PUSCH resources for SDT to an initial UL BWP (see, Agiwal: para. [0118-0120]).
In the same field of endeavor, Tsai teaches determining the validity/usability of a configured-grant resource in RRC_INACTIVE based on timing-advance validity and serving-cell reference-signal measurements. In particular, Tsai teaches maintaining a TA timer while the UE is in RRC_INACTIVE and clearing/releasing the CG resource where the TA timer is not running or expires, thereby determining usability of CG resource based on TA validity (see, Tsai: para. [0240], “Alt. C: The UE May Release/Suspend the CG Configuration Based on TA Validity.”). Tsai further teaches that the CG configuration may include a “TA timer for TA validity” (see, Tsai: para. [0241], “In some implementations, a specific timer may be used to control whether the TA is valid. For example, the UE may consider the TA valid if the specific timer is running. The UE may consider the TA invalid if the specific timer expires or the specific timer is not running.”). Tsai further teaches determining whether to release/suspend the CG configuration based on RSRP measured for an SSB and/or CSI-RS, including releasing/suspending a CG configuration associated with the SSB/CSI-RS when the measured RSRP fails to satisfy a configured threshold (see, Tsai: para. [0255], “Alt. D: The UE May Release/Suspend the CG Configuration Based on (DL) Channel Condition.”; para. [0257], “The UE may determine whether to release/suspend the CG configuration based on the measurement of RSRP (e.g., RSRP for a Synchronization Signal block (SSB) and/or RSRP for a CSI-RS). More specifically, the UE may be configured with a threshold.”). Tsai additionally teaches that the CG configuration may include both a TA timer for TA validity (see, Tsai: para. [0241]) and an RSRP change threshold (see, Tsai: para. [0309]). Accordingly, Tsai teaches the use, in the same RRC_INACTIVE configured-grant framework, of TA validity to determined continued CG-resource usability and SSB-based measurements to determine continued validity/usability of the CG configuration.
Qualcomm explicitly teaches that the SSB applicable to the RedCap-specific BWP can be either a CD-SSB or NCD-SSB (see, Qualcomm: Proposal 5). Qualcomm further teaches that the serving-cell NDC-SSB can be used in RRC_INACTIVE for time/frequency tracking (see, Qualcomm: Proposal 15) and as a reference for UL channels/signals transmitted in inactive mode (see, Qualcomm: Proposal 20).
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 Agiwal in view of Tsai in combination of the teachings of Qualcomm in order to employ the CD-SSB or NCD-SSB applicable to the RedCap BWP as the second SSB/reference used in connection with determining validity of timing alignment for the CG-PUSCH, thereby avoiding unnecessary BWP/RF retuning while maintaining synchronized CG-PUSCH transmission.
Regarding claim 6:
As discussed above, Agiwal in view of Tsai and Qualcomm teaches all limitations in claim 5.
Qualcomm further teaches wherein the second preset rule comprises at least one of the following: determining the second SSB depending on whether the network side device configures to use a cell defining SSB; determining the second SSB depending on whether the network side device configures to use a non-cell defining SSB; determining the second SSB depending on whether the network side device configures a non-cell defining SSB on the first BWP; or determining the second SSB depending on whether the network side device configures a second object on the first BWP, wherein the second object comprises at least one of the following: type 2 common search space (CSS), type 2A CSS, CSS for terminal monitoring in which a PDCCH scrambled by a paging-radio network temporary identifier is located, or CSS for terminal monitoring in which a PDCCH scrambled by a paging early indication-radio network temporary identifier is located (see, Qualcomm: Claim 6 is directed towards the method according to claim 5 that is further limited to similar features to claim 3 for the second SSB/reference used in connection with determining validity of timing alignment for the CG-PUSCH. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 3 above.).
Regarding claim 7:
As discussed above, Agiwal in view of Tsai and Qualcomm teaches all limitations in claim 6.
Qualcomm further teaches wherein in a case that the second preset rule comprises determining the second SSB depending on whether the network side device configures a non-cell defining SSB on the first BWP, the second SSB meets the following: in a case that the non-cell defining SSB is configured on the first BWP, the second SSB is the non-cell defining SSB; or in a case that the non-cell defining SSB is not configured on the first BWP, the second SSB is a cell defining SSB (see, Qualcomm: Claim 7 is directed towards the method according to claim 6 that is further limited to similar features to claim 4 for the second SSB/reference used in connection with determining validity of timing alignment for the CG-PUSCH. Therefore, claim 7 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 4 above.).
Regarding claim 8:
As discussed above, Agiwal in view of Tsai and Qualcomm teaches all limitations in claim 6.
Qualcomm further teaches wherein in a case that the second preset rule comprises determining the second SSB depending on whether the network side device configures a second object on the first BWP, the second SSB meets the following: in a case that the second object is configured on the first BWP, the second SSB is a non-cell defining SSB; or in a case that the second object is not configured on the first BWP, the second SSB is a cell defining SSB (see, Qualcomm: Section 2.1.4, Observation 9 expressly links the presence of CORESET/CSS for RA and/or paging in a RedCap initial BWP without CD-SSB to transmission of an NCD-SSB within that BWP. Proposal 5 likewise proposes putting SSB and CORESET/CSS for paging together in the RedCap-specific initial BWP. Proposal 7 expressly describes the case where the RedCap initial BWP is configured with NCD-SSB and CORESET/CSS for paging, and Proposal 8 teaches that if no SSB is transmitted in the RedCap initial DL BWP, CORESET/CSS sets for SI/RA/paging/PEI/SDT are not configured for that RedCap UE. Further, Proposal 21 teaches CSS for paging within the RedCap RRC-configured BWP, with the paging PDCCH QCL’ed with the NCD-SSB transmitted in that BWP. Therefore, it would have been obvious to associate selection of the NCD-SSB with configuration of the paging-related CSS in the RedCap BWP, and otherwise relay upon the CD-SSB/legacy configuration.).
Regarding claim 9:
As discussed above, Agiwal in view of Tsai and Qualcomm teaches all limitations in claim 5.
Qualcomm further teaches wherein in a case that the second SSB is the non-cell defining SSB, the second SSB is an SSB defined on the first BWP (see, Qualcomm: Observation 9 expressly teaches transmitting the NCD-SSB in the initial DL BWP of the RedCap UE. Proposal 5 likewise places the CD-SSB or NCD-SSB in the RedCap-specific initial BWP. Section 2.2.1 independently states that: NCD-SSB should be transmitted in the RRC-configured DL BWP without CD-SSB, and Proposal 13 contrasts receiving NCD-SSB with the RedCap UE’s active BWP against retuning to CD-SSB outside that BWP. Thus, Qualcomm expressly teaches an NCD-SSB located within the applicable RedCap BWP.).
Regarding claim 10:
As discussed above, Agiwal in view of Qualcomm teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Agiwal in view of Qualcomm does not explicitly teach wherein both the second SSB and the first SSB are cell defining SSBs or non-cell defining SSBs.
In the same field of endeavor, Tsai implies the “second SSB” and TA validity (see, Tsai: para. [0240], “The UE May Release/Suspend the CG Configuration Based on TA Validity.” and para. [0255], “Alt. D: The UE May Release/Suspend the CG Configuration Based on (DL) Channel Condition.”, teaching TA validity for CG operation and CG validity based on SSB/CSI-RS RSRP measurements (para. [0257].).
Agiwal teaches associating SSBs with configured-grant PUSCH resources used for SDT in RRC_INACTIVE. In particular, para. [0100] teaches that the preconfigured PUSCH resources “are also mapped to SSB(s)”. Para. [0106-0108] teach selecting an SSB associated with the preconfigured PUSCH resources and transmitting using the UL grant corresponding to the selected SSB, and para. [0125-0146] further describe associated mapping between SSBs and configured grants/PUSCH occasion.
Qualcomm further teaches that an SSB applicable to a RedCap-specific initial BWP may be either a cell-defining SSB (CD-SSB) or non-cell-defining SSB (NCD-SSB) (see, Qualcomm: Section 2.1.4, Observation 9 and Proposal 5.). Qualcomm further teaches that a serving-cell NCD-SSB may be used by a RedCap US in RRC_INACTIVE for time/frequency tracking (see, Qualcomm: Proposal 15) and may provide spatial-relation configuration for UL channels/signals transmitted in inactive mode (see, Qualcomm: Proposal 20).
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 Agiwal in view of Tsai in combination of the teachings of Qualcomm in order to employ the CD-SSB/NCD-SSB framework taught by Qualcomm for both the SSB associated with Agiwal’s configured-grant PUSCH and the SSB employed for timing/tracking of the RedCap UE, because Qualcomm expressly teaches CD-SSB and NCD-SSB as serving-cell synchronization references and teaches use of NCD-SSB for time/frequency tracking and UL-channel operation in RRC_INACTIVE. Accordingly, the combination renders obvious the limitation that both the first SSB and the second SSB are CD-SSBs or NCD-SSBs.
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