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 .
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(s) 2 and 4 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites, in part:
“wherein the control signal is a Medium Access Control-Control Element (MAC-CE)”.
The office notes that the independent claim 1 does not recite “a control signal” thus, the recitation of “the control signal” lacks antecedent basis. The office recommends amending the claim to recite, “wherein a control signal is a …….”, to overcome the rejection.
Claim 4 recites, in part:
“wherein the control signal is a Downlink Control Information (DCI), and the DCI includes scheduling grant information”
As discussed above, the independent claim does not disclose “a control signal” thus the recitation of “the control signal” lacks antecedent basis.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 13, and 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by He (US 2024/0365340 A1).
Regarding claim 1, He discloses:
a method of waveform switching (par.[0078] describes waveform switching) in a cellular network (fig.1 depicts a cellular wireless communications network), the method comprising:
configuring, by a Base Station (BS) (fig.1 element 1100 depicts a wireless base station), a first waveform for Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) transmission (fig.5 the UE receives, on the downlink (DL) in an Radio Resource Control (RRC) message a first waveform for PUSCH, par.[0086]);
selecting, by the BS (the aforecited BS), a second waveform for dynamically switching from the first waveform (fig.5 wherein the BS transmits to the UE a Downlink Control Information (DCI). The BS configures the DCI, which includes the update to the waveform for PUSCH transmission. The DCI is sent to the UE on the downlink prior to the transmission of the PUSCH, par.[0086]), wherein the second waveform is used for communication in a scheduled PUSCH transmission (par.[0086] as discussed above, the DCI includes the PUSCH UL grant, and the indication to switch waveforms) based on one or more waveform switching parameters (par.[0115] as discussed above, which recites, in part, “By using the above examples 1 to 4, in different PUSCH transmission scenarios, the network device may determine the transform-precoder enabling state of the PUSCH according to actual situations, and the terminal device may determine the enabling state according to the indication information delivered by the network device.”. That is, the different parameters can trigger the transform-precoder enablement which causes the waveform switch as shown in fig(s). 4-5); and
transmitting, by the BS, control information defined by the one or more waveform switching parameters, to a User Equipment (UE) (fig.5 wherein the DCI is transmitted from the base station to the UE for UL PUSCH transmission).
Regarding claim 2, He discloses:
wherein the control signal is a Medium Access Control-Control Element (MAC-CE) (par.[0143 – 0144] which describe the indication information being carried in a MAC-CE).
Regarding claim 4, He discloses:
wherein the control signal is a Downlink Control Information (DCI), and the DCI includes scheduling grant information (fig(s). 4-5 depict the indication being sent in the DCI).
Regarding claim 6, He discloses:
wherein when the DCI with the waveform switching information is received by the UE, the UE performs one of:
enabling the waveform switching information to the PUSCH transmission scheduled by the DCI (fig(s).4-5 as discussed above, wherein the DCI indicates the enablement or the indication to perform the waveform switching);
enabling all upcoming PUSCH transmission with the waveform switching information overriding the RRC, until a new DCI without a PUSCH transmission for switching the waveform arrives; and
enabling the PUSCH transmission under configured grant with the waveform switching information, when the DCI is meant for activation of configured grant, until a new DCI for configured grant arrives for performing one of switching the waveform or deactivating the configured grant.
Regarding claim 13, the disclosure of He teaches:
wherein the one or more waveform switching parameters include association of the TP with the Radio Network Temporary Identifier (RNTI), and wherein the UE determines association of the TP through DCI scrambled with the RNTI to determine waveform for PUSCH transmission (par.[0103] which recites, in part, “For example, the retransmission of the Msg3 may be scheduled by DCI format 0_0 scrambled by a TC-RNTI, and the transform-precoder enabling state or a waveform used for the retransmission of the Msg3 may be indicated by the DCI format 0_0 scrambled by the TC-RNTI.”).
Regarding claim 17, He teaches:
wherein the one or more waveform switching parameters include a scrambling identifier attached to a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) and a corresponding Demodulation Reference Signal (DMRS), and wherein the PDCCH-DMRS is uniquely mapped to one of TP enabled and TP disabled (as shown in fig.5 the DCI which is carried on PDCCH can inform the UE of whether or not the PUSCH is to use a first waveform or a second waveform, e.g. the transform precoder is enable/disabled. Additionally, the DCI is carried on PDCCH which is scrambled by TC-RNTI as discussed in par.[0103]. Additionally, in order to decode the PDCCH, the UE utilizes the DMRS which is scrambled based on the RNTI).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 7, 9-10, and 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He as applied to claim 1, in view of Matsumura et al. (US 2024/0334432 A1).
Regarding claim 3, He discloses the use of a MAC-CE for providing the switching waveform information, but may not disclose:
wherein the one or more waveform switching parameters include one bit information scrambled in the MAC-CE, and wherein the one bit information is used to switch a waveform indicated in Radio Resource Control (RRC) configuration.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Matsumura teaches:
wherein the one or more waveform switching parameters include one bit information scrambled in the MAC-CE, and wherein the one bit information is used to switch a waveform indicated in Radio Resource Control (RRC) configuration (par.[0063] which recites, in part, “MAC CE signaling-based dynamic UL waveform switching may be performed. For example, the MAC CE may include a 1-bit field indicating a CP-OFDM or DFT-s-OFDM waveform used for the PUSCH (explicit signaling).”. That is, 1-bit in the MAC-CE is utilized to indicate the transform precoder (waveform switching) CP-OFDM or DFT-S-OFDM to be used via the reception of the MAC-CE).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of He which describes the use of MAC-CE to indicate a transform precoder, with the disclosure of Matsumura which teaches that the MAC-CE for transform precoder is indicated using a single bit in the MAC-CE. The motivation/suggestion would have been that utilizing a single bit would allow for at least two different indications to be sent by flipping the bit from “0” to “1” which could indicate the switching.
Regarding claim 5, Matsumura discloses:
wherein the one or more waveform switching parameters include one bit information scrambled in the DCI, and wherein the one bit information is used to switch the waveform indicated in RRC configuration (par.[0062] which recites, in part, “DCI signaling-based dynamic waveform switching may be performed implicitly or explicitly. For example, the DCI may include a 1-bit field indicating a CP-OFDM or DFT-s-OFDM waveform used for the PUSCH (explicit signaling).”).
Regarding claim 7, Matsumura discloses:
truncating fields in DCI format by the UE, for determining payload size with respect to the waveform switching information when the UE receives the DCI with the waveform switching information as Transform Precoding (TP) enabled, and the size of fields in the DCI format with TP enabled is more than the size of fields with TP disabled (fig.2 depicts that when Transform Precoding is enabled the field size of DCI field 4 is larger than the field size for field 4 when TP is disabled, par.[0074] which teaches that each field size in the DCI may be made larger based on the enablement or disablement of the TP).
Regarding claim 9, Matsumura discloses:
wherein when the UE receives the DCI with the waveform switching information as TP enabled (fig.2 depicts the DCI with transform precoder enabled) and the size of fields with TP enabled is less than the size of fields with TP disabled, the UE assumes a pre-defined default value for the field (fig.2 DCI fields 1 and 2, are smaller when TP is enabled than when TP is disabled, par.[0048]).
Regarding claim 10, Matsumura discloses:
wherein when the field in the DCI format is DMRS sequence initialization, the UE assumes pre-defined default value for the field from one of '0' and '1', and when the field is PTRS-DMRS association, the UE assumes pre-defined default value for the field from one of '00', '01','10','11' (par.[0048 – 0049] describes the field with regard to DMRS and PTRS-DMRS).
Regarding claim 15, Matsumura discloses:
wherein the one or more waveform switching parameters include payload size of the DCI, and wherein the payload size of the DCI s determined separately for TP enabled and TP disabled (par.[0045] which recites, in part, “as described in (1) to (6) below, sizes of some DCI fields in a DCI format (for example, DCI format 0_0/0_1/0_2) are affected by the waveform switching.”.).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He as applied to claim 1, in view of Matsumura et al. (US 2024/0334432 A1), and further in view of Bae (WO 2019/2116737 A1).
Regarding claim 8, He and Matsumura, and in particular Matsumura discloses:
wherein the fields in the DCI format include Precoding information (par.[0046] describes the precoding information), number of layers (par.[0046] describes the number of layers field), and antenna ports (par.[0047] describes the “antenna ports field”), and wherein the UE performs truncation of the field (par.[0048] teaches truncation of the field, in particular the DMRS field) by discarding one or more of Most Significant Bits (MSBs) or Least Significant Bits (LSBs)
While the disclosure of He and Matsumura teach truncating fields, they may not disclose:
wherein the UE performs truncation of the field by discarding one or more of Most Significant Bits (MSBs) or Least Significant Bits (LSBs).
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Bae teaches:
wherein the UE performs truncation of the field by discarding one or more of Most Significant Bits (MSBs) or Least Significant Bits (LSBs) (B-3 par.[0383] which recites, in part, “Zero bits may be padded or truncated to the most significant bit (MSB) or least significant bit (LSB) to have.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of He and Matsumura, in view of Bae. The motivation/suggestion would have been to pad a DCI when a field is truncated in order for the size of the DCI to be the same although the fields are different sizes.
Claim(s) 11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He as applied to claim 1, in view of Shibaike et al. (EP 4 307 824 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the disclosure of He teaches:
wherein the status of the TP s either enabled or disabled (par.[0115] which describes enabling or disabling a transform precoder), but may not disclose:
wherein the one or more waveform switching parameters include a field indicating the status of the TP added in one or more of the information elements in RRC including Control Resource Set, Search Space, Control Resource Set Zero, and Search Space Zero.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Shibaike teaches:
wherein the one or more waveform switching parameters include a field indicating the status of the TP added in one or more of the information elements in RRC including Control Resource Set, Search Space, Control Resource Set Zero, and Search Space Zero (par.[0037] which describes the waveform switching in RRC control resource set).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine teachings He for transform precoding enablement with the disclosure of Shibaike. The motivation/suggestion would have been that RRC signaling is routinely used to provide control information to a UE.
Claim(s) 12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He and Shibaike as applied to claim 11, in view of Aiba et al. (US 2022/0353041 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the disclosure of He and Shibaike teaches:
PUSCH transmission with TP enabled, when the DCI is detected with TP enabled through pre-configuration of the RRC (He: fig.5 depicts PUSCH transmission using a second waveform); and
PUSCH transmission with TP disabled, when the DCI is detected with TP disabled through pre-configuration of the RRC (He:fig.5 teaches PUSCH transmission using a first waveform).
They may not disclose:
performing blind decoding for DCI.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Aiba teaches:
performing blind decoding for DCI (par.[0086] which recites, in part, “The UE 102 may attempt to decode (e.g., blind decoding, monitor, detect) DCI”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of He and Shibaike with the disclosure of Aiba for blind decoding. The motivation/suggestion would have been to allow the UE to retrieve important control information when it does not know exactly where in the control channel the DCI is.
Claim(s) 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He as applied to claim 1, in view of Aiba et al. (US 2022/0353041 A1).
Regarding claim 14, the disclosure of He teaches:
PUSCH transmission with TP enabled, when the DCI is identified to be attached with an RNTI having TP enabled (fig.5 and DCI is sent for PUSCH, and par.[0103]); and
PUSCH transmission with TP disabled, when the DCI is identified to be attached with an RNTI having TP disabled (fig.5 first waveform is used and par.[0103]).
While the disclosure of He teaches reception of DCI, it may not disclose:
wherein the UE performs blind decoding for the DCI.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Aiba teaches:
wherein the UE performs blind decoding for the DCI wherein the UE performs blind decoding for the DCI (Aiba: par.[0086] which teaches the blind decoding).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of He with the disclosure of Aiba for blind decoding. The motivation/suggestion would have been to allow the UE to retrieve important control information when it does not know exactly where in the control channel the DCI is.
Claim(s) 16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He and Matsumura as applied to claim 11, in view of Aiba et al. (US 2022/0353041 A1).
Regarding claim 16, the disclosure of He and Matsumura teaches:
PUSCH transmission with TP enabled, when the DCI is detected for the payload size with TP enabled (Matsumura: par.[0045] which recites, in part, “as described in (1) to (6) below, sizes of some DCI fields in a DCI format (for example, DCI format 0_0/0_1/0_2) are affected by the waveform switching.”.); and
PUSCH transmission with TP disabled, when the DCI is detected for the payload size with TP disabled (par.[0045] which recites, in part, “as described in (1) to (6) below, sizes of some DCI fields in a DCI format (for example, DCI format 0_0/0_1/0_2) are affected by the waveform switching.”.).
While the disclosure of He and Matsumura teaches reception of DCI, it may not disclose:
wherein the UE performs blind decoding for the DCI.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Aiba teaches:
wherein the UE performs blind decoding for the DCI wherein the UE performs blind decoding for the DCI (Aiba: par.[0086] which teaches the blind decoding).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of He with the disclosure of Aiba for blind decoding. The motivation/suggestion would have been to allow the UE to retrieve important control information when it does not know exactly where in the control channel the DCI is.
Claim(s) 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He as applied to claim 1, in view of Aiba et al. (US 2022/0353041 A1).
Regarding claim 18, the disclosure of He teaches:
PUSCH transmission with TP enabled, when the DCI is detected using a PDCCH-DMRS-Scrambling identifier mapped to TP enabled (fig.5 and DCI is sent for PUSCH, and par.[0103], as discussed above, the RNTI is scrambled for PDCCH reception wherein PDCCH relays the DCI); and
PUSCH transmission with TP disabled, when the DCI is detected using a PDCCH-DMRS-Scrambling identifier mapped to TP disabled (fig.5 first waveform is used and par.[0103] as discussed above, the RNTI is scrambled for PDCCH reception wherein PDCCH relays the DCI).
While the disclosure of He teaches reception of DCI, it may not disclose:
wherein the UE performs blind decoding for the DCI.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Aiba teaches:
wherein the UE performs blind decoding for the DCI wherein the UE performs blind decoding for the DCI (Aiba: par.[0086] which teaches the blind decoding).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of He with the disclosure of Aiba for blind decoding. The motivation/suggestion would have been to allow the UE to retrieve important control information when it does not know exactly where in the control channel the DCI is.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMAAL HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5339. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thu: 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)272-3123. 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.
JAMAAL HENSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2411
/JAMAAL HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights