DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 26 August 2024.
Claims 1-20 are under examination.
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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 9-12, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0322399 A1) (“Kim”).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches [the method of claim 1, including receiving signaling associated with a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH), determining a resource allocation type, performing a first computation based on one or more first input parameters including a first input parameter indicating the resource allocation type, a second input parameter comprising an RB bitmap, and a third input parameter indicating a size of an RB group or bundle, and performing the recited computation of PRBs for the PDSCH]. Kim expressly teaches that two resource-allocation types, Type 0 and Type 1, are supported for frequency-domain resource allocation for PDSCH (Kim ¶[0164]). For Type 0, Kim teaches that resource-block assignment information includes a bitmap indicating an RBG assigned to the UE; that an RBG is a set of consecutive virtual resource blocks; that the RBG is defined based on the higher-layer parameter rbg-Size and the size of the BWP; that the RBGs are indexed in increasing frequency order starting from the lowest frequency of the BWP; and that a bitmap value of 1 indicates an allocated RBG while a value of 0 indicates an unallocated RBG (Kim ¶[0165]). Thus, Kim teaches the claimed resource-allocation-type input, RB-bitmap input, and RB-group-size input.
Kim further teaches PRB bundling in connection with PDSCH and therefore additionally teaches the claimed alternative involving an RB bundle. Kim also teaches determining frequency resources based on the size of the frequency resources, including the number of PRBs mapped or allocated to a resource, and selecting a frequency resource based on the number of PRBs mapped thereto (Kim ¶[0303]). Kim further teaches determining a resource according to its frequency-resource index (Kim ¶[0304]).
To the extent Kim does not expressly describe in a single embodiment the first and second computations using the recited first, second, and third input parameters to compute the claimed PRB result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply Kim's teaching of determining frequency resources based on the number and indexing of PRBs (Kim ¶¶[0303]-[0304]) to Kim's Type-0 PDSCH resource-allocation procedure (Kim ¶¶[0164]-[0165]). Kim's Type-0 procedure identifies allocated RBGs using an RB bitmap and RBG size and indexes the RBGs in increasing frequency order, while Kim's later teaching determines frequency resources according to the number and index of allocated PRBs. Applying Kim's disclosed PRB determination technique to Kim's disclosed PDSCH resource-allocation procedure would predictably determine the physical resource blocks corresponding to the resource allocation indicated by the signaling.
Regarding claim 2, Kim further teaches wherein the determined resource allocation type is resource allocation type-0 or resource allocation type-1. Kim expressly teaches that Type 0 and Type 1 are supported for frequency-domain resource allocation for PDSCH (Kim ¶[0164]) and specifically describes Type-0 resource allocation using an RBG bitmap (Kim ¶[0165]).
Regarding claim 3, Kim further teaches wherein the first and second computations are compatible with both resource allocation type-0 and resource allocation type-1 in part. Kim expressly teaches a PDSCH frequency-domain resource-allocation framework supporting both Type 0 and Type 1 and describes the corresponding resource-allocation procedures (Kim ¶¶[0164]-[0166]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement Kim's resource computations to operate with both resource-allocation types expressly supported by Kim so that the same UE resource-processing implementation could determine PDSCH resources under either standardized allocation type, thereby predictably providing compatibility with both resource-allocation formats.
Regarding claim 4, Kim further teaches wherein the signaling comprises downlink control information (DCI) or radio resource control (RRC) signaling. Kim expressly teaches receiving DCI for scheduling PDSCH and decoding the PDSCH according to the indication provided by the DCI (Kim ¶[0161]). Kim further teaches that DCI includes a frequency-domain resource-assignment field used to schedule frequency resources (Kim ¶¶[0246]-[0249], [0402]-[0403]).
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches the limitations of claim 9, which recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 in apparatus form, for substantially the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1. In particular, Kim teaches Type 0 and Type 1 PDSCH resource allocation, Type-0 RBG bitmap processing, RBG size and indexing, and determining frequency resources based on the number and indexing of PRBs (Kim ¶¶[0164]–[0165], [0303]–[0304]). To the extent Kim does not expressly describe the recited computations together in a single embodiment, it would have been obvious to combine Kim's teachings for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches wherein the determined resource allocation type is resource allocation type-0 or resource allocation type-1 for substantially the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 2 (Kim ¶¶[0164]–[0165]).
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches wherein the first and second computations are compatible with both resource allocation type-0 and resource allocation type-1 for substantially the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 3 (Kim ¶¶[0164]–[0166]).
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches wherein the signaling comprises downlink control information (DCI) or radio resource control (RRC) signaling for substantially the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 4 (Kim ¶[0161]).
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches the limitations of claim 16, which recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 in another statutory form, for substantially the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1. In particular, Kim teaches Type 0 and Type 1 PDSCH resource allocation, Type-0 RBG bitmap processing, RBG size and indexing, and determining frequency resources based on the number and indexing of PRBs (Kim ¶¶[0164]–[0165], [0303]–[0304]). To the extent Kim does not expressly describe the recited computations together in a single embodiment, it would have been obvious to combine Kim's teachings for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches wherein the determined resource allocation type is resource allocation type-0 or resource allocation type-1 for substantially the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 2 (Kim ¶¶[0164]–[0165]).
Regarding claim 18, Kim teaches wherein the first and second computations are compatible with both resource allocation type-0 and resource allocation type-1 for substantially the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 3 (Kim ¶¶[0164]–[0166]).
Regarding claim 19, Kim teaches wherein the signaling comprises downlink control information (DCI) or radio resource control (RRC) signaling for substantially the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 4 (Kim ¶[0161]).
Claims 5-7, 13-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. in view of Seo et al. (US 2015/0131546 A1) (“Seo”).
Regarding claim 5, Kim does not expressly disclose wherein the first computation utilizes arithmetic logical unit (ALU) operations including at least one of addition, subtraction, bit shift, bitwise AND, bitwise OR, or bitwise NOT operations. Seo teaches bitmap-based resource allocation for Type 0 and Type 1 resource allocation and expressly describes manipulation of the resource-allocation bitmap, including shifting bitmap information in determining allocated resources (Seo ¶¶[0089]-[0103], Figs. 6-8). Seo's disclosure is directed specifically to resource allocation using RBs and RBGs; Seo explains that RBG size is determined by the system band and that resource allocation information identifies allocated resources (Seo ¶¶[0004], [0008]-[0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ Seo's bit-shift bitmap-processing technique in Kim's bitmap-based PDSCH resource computation because both Kim and Seo process resource-allocation bitmaps identifying groups of resource blocks. Applying Seo's known bit-level processing to Kim's RB bitmap would provide a predictable and computationally efficient technique for manipulating the bitmap and determining the resource blocks represented thereby.
Regarding claim 6, Kim in view of Seo teaches wherein the first computation is utilized for multiple iterations to compute and update the RB bitmap for a maximum of 275 PRBs associated with a 32-bit word comprising an array of nine elements in part. Kim teaches bitmap-based frequency-domain resource allocation and determining frequency resources based on the number of allocated PRBs (Kim ¶¶[0164]-[0165], [0303]). Seo further teaches fixed-size bitmap processing for resource-block allocation and expressly describes resource allocation over a 32-PRB resource space using bitmap-based processing (Seo ¶¶[0091]-[0099]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, when implementing Kim's larger PRB bitmap using Seo's fixed-size bitmap-processing technique, to represent a bitmap capable of covering a maximum of 275 PRBs as an array of nine 32-bit elements and iteratively process the respective elements. Nine 32-bit elements provide 288 bit positions and thus sufficient capacity to represent a bitmap of up to 275 PRBs. Using successive fixed-size words and iterating the bitmap computation over those words would have been a predictable implementation of Seo's bitmap-processing technique for the larger PRB space processed by Kim.
Regarding claim 7, Seo further teaches wherein the one or more first input parameters include at least one of: one or more parameters specifying at least one of dimensions or characteristics of an array associated with the RB bitmap; one or more parameters specifying a starting RB for the first computation; one or more parameters specifying a total number of RBs for the first computation; or one or more parameters specifying a mask of RBs associated with the RB bitmap. Seo teaches resource-allocation procedures using parameters identifying the location and extent of the allocated resource blocks, including the starting resource block and the number or length of resource blocks associated with the allocation (Seo ¶¶[0089]-[0103]). Seo also teaches that the number of RBs in the system band determines resource-allocation parameters and RBG characteristics (Seo ¶¶[0004], [0106]-[0108]). Because claim 7 recites the input parameters in the alternative, Seo's teaching of a starting RB and/or total number of RBs satisfies the claimed subject matter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide such starting-RB and resource-size information as inputs to the bitmap computation of Kim because those parameters define the location and extent of the resource allocation to be represented and processed by the bitmap.
Regarding claim 13, Seo teaches wherein the first computation utilizes arithmetic logical unit (ALU) operations including at least one of addition, subtraction, bit shift, bitwise AND, bitwise OR, or bitwise NOT operations for substantially the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 5, including Seo's bitmap-processing and bit-shift teachings (Seo ¶¶[0089]–[0103]).
Regarding claim 14, Kim in view of Seo teaches wherein the first computation is utilized for multiple iterations to compute and update the RB bitmap for a maximum of 275 PRBs associated with a 32-bit word comprising an array of nine elements for substantially the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 6.
Regarding claim 15, Seo teaches wherein the one or more first input parameters include at least one of parameters specifying dimensions or characteristics of an array associated with the RB bitmap, a starting RB, a total number of RBs, or a mask of RBs associated with the RB bitmap for substantially the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 7 (Seo ¶¶[0089]–[0103]).
Regarding claim 20, Seo teaches wherein the first computation utilizes arithmetic logical unit (ALU) operations including at least one of addition, subtraction, bit shift, bitwise AND, bitwise OR, or bitwise NOT operations for substantially the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 5, including Seo's bitmap-processing and bit-shift teachings (Seo ¶¶[0089]–[0103]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. in view of Seo et al., and further in view of Kreienkamp et al. (US 2020/0228264 A1) (“Kreienkamp”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kim and Seo does not expressly disclose wherein if a number of PRBs exceeds a word boundary of the 32-bit word, the first computation updates both lower and upper 32-bit words to compensate for crossover across the word boundary.
Kreienkamp teaches processing based on whether a number of allocated PRBs crosses a predetermined threshold. In particular, Kreienkamp compares the number of PRBs allocated for respective transmission time intervals with a threshold and adjusts the processing bandwidth based on the comparison results. Kreienkamp expressly teaches that bandwidth switching is performed when the number of allocated PRBs crosses the defined threshold, while processing is maintained when the PRB counts remain on the same side of the threshold (Kreienkamp ¶¶[0067]-[0073]). Kreienkamp thus teaches adapting processing of allocated PRBs depending upon whether the number of PRBs crosses a predetermined processing boundary; the reference is expressly directed to controlling processing bandwidth according to the number of allocated PRBs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply Kreienkamp's threshold-dependent PRB processing to the multiword bitmap implementation resulting from Kim and Seo such that, when the number of PRBs extends across the boundary of a 32-bit word, the computation updates the lower 32-bit word containing PRBs below the boundary and the upper 32-bit word containing PRBs above the boundary. Once the PRB bitmap is represented by successive 32-bit words as discussed with respect to claim 6, an allocation crossing a word boundary occupies portions of both adjacent words, and updating both words would predictably preserve the bitmap representation of all allocated PRBs. Kreienkamp further provides express reason to adapt processing when the number of allocated PRBs crosses an applicable threshold.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (see form 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAT PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 7:30 AM - 6:30 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, Marcus Smith can be reached on 571-27. 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). 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.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights