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 .
This communication is response to claims filed on 08/26/24 via a preliminary amendment, which is considered by the examiner.
Claims 57-76 are presented for examination.
Claims 1-56 are canceled.
Claims 57-76 are newly added.
Information Disclosure Statement’s
6. The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 12/18/24 have being considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Drawing
7. The drawings filed on 08/26/24 & 04/14/25 are accepted by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 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.
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.
9. Claims 57 & 76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babaei et al. (hereinafter referred as Babaei) US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0312545 A1, in view of Xu et al. (hereinafter referred as Xu) US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0227410 A1.
Regarding claims 57 & 76: Babaei discloses a first device (See FIG. 15 & Para. 0170; a wireless device)/method, comprising:
at least one processor (See FIG. 15 & Para. 0170; a wireless device includes CPU); and
at least one memory (See FIG. 15 & Para. 0170; a wireless device includes memory) including computer program code; the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the first device to:
determine, during a physical downlink control channel monitoring adaptation, to transmit a scheduling request to a second device (See FIG. 24, Para. 0383 & 0384 & 0389; The wireless device may receive a command/signaling indicating reducing monitoring a control channel and based on that signaling, triggers/transmits a second scheduling request. The reduction can be PDCCH skipping or switching monitoring periodicity).
transmit the scheduling request to the second device (See FIG. 70, Para. 0135-0136 & 0714; the wireless device may transmit a scheduling request while skipping the monitoring the downlink control channel); and
perform the physical downlink control channel monitoring on the one or more cells (See FIG. 70 & Para. 0714; the wireless device may resume the monitoring the control channel based on the transmitting the scheduling request).
Babaei discloses determining monitoring occasions based on monitoring parameters, including switching among first, second and third monitoring parameters. Carrier aggregation in which a UE is configured with multiple cells, including a PCell and SCell (See Para. 0349-0350) but does not explicitly disclose determine one or more cells on which the physical downlink control channel monitoring is to be performed.
However, Xu from the same field of endeavor discloses determine one or more cells on which the physical downlink control channel monitoring is to be performed (See Para. 0080, 0098; PDCCH aggregation environment in which a UE determines the cell on which PDCCH monitoring is performed); and
perform the physical downlink control channel monitoring on the one or more cells (See Para. 0098, 0104 & 0106; the UE performs PDCCH monitoring associated with a selected first/second cell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determine one or more cells on which the physical downlink control channel monitoring is to be performed as taught by Xu in the system of Babaei in perform PDCCH monitoring associated with a first cell based on a determination that the one or more conditions is satisfied (See abstract; lines 3-4).
10. Claims 58-60 & 65-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babaei, in view of Xu, further in view of Martin et al. (hereinafter referred as Martin) US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0337897 A1.
Regarding claim 58: The combination of Babaei and Xu disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of wherein the determining to transmit the scheduling request to the second device comprises: in response to a buffer status report to be transmitted to the second device, determining to transmit, to the second device, the scheduling request for the buffer status report.
However, Martin from the same field of endeavor discloses determining to transmit the scheduling request to the second device comprises: in response to a buffer status report to be transmitted to the second device, determining to transmit, to the second device, the scheduling request for the buffer status report (See FIGs. 5-6 & Para. 0085-0088; determines whether a SR should be triggered as part of the BSR procedure. When no UL resources are available for the BSR, an SR is transmitted to obtain resources. transmitting an SR requesting uplink resources including resources for transmission of the BSR).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining to transmit the scheduling request to the second device comprises: in response to a buffer status report to be transmitted to the second device, determining to transmit, to the second device, the scheduling request for the buffer status report as taught by Martin in the combined system of Babaei and Xu to improve service provisioning and reduce user and operator costs (See Para. 0003; lines 4-5).
11. Claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babaei, in view of Xu, further in view of Alireza et al. (hereinafter referred as Alireza) International Publication No. WO 2020/033395 A1.
Regarding claim 59: The combination of Babaei and Xu disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of wherein one logical channel is associated with an identifier of the scheduling request, and wherein the determining one or more cells comprises: determining, based on the identifier of the scheduling request, the one or more cells in an allowed cell list associated with the one logical channel.
However, Alireza from the same field of endeavor discloses wherein one logical channel (See Para. 00313; logicalchannelconfig) is associated with an identifier of the scheduling request, and wherein the determining one or more cells comprises: determining, based on the identifier of the scheduling request (See Para. 0331; the logicalchannel config includes schedulingrequestID as a parameter of the logical channel configuration), the one or more cells in an allowed cell list associated with the one logical channel (See Para. 0319; configuring mapping restrictions for a logical channel: allowedSCS-List which may sets the allowed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein one logical channel is associated with an identifier of the scheduling request, and wherein the determining one or more cells comprises: determining, based on the identifier of the scheduling request, the one or more cells in an allowed cell list associated with the one logical channel as taught by Alireza in the combined system of Babaei and Xu to increments a listen before talk counter based on a listen before talk procedure indicating a busy channel for an uplink transmission via a first bandwidth part (See abstract; lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 60: The combination of Babaei and Xu and Alireza disclose a first device.
Furthermore, Alireza discloses the first device, wherein the determined one or more cells in the allowed cell list comprise at least one of: all cells in the allowed cell list (See Para. 0319; allowedSCS-List which may sets the allowed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the determined one or more cells in the allowed cell list comprise at least one of: all cells in the allowed cell list as taught by Alireza in the combined system of Babaei and Xu to increments a listen before talk counter based on a listen before talk procedure indicating a busy channel for an uplink transmission via a first bandwidth part (See abstract; lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 65: The combination of Babaei and Xu and Alireza disclose a first device.
Furthermore, Alireza discloses the first device, wherein the determining to transmit the scheduling request to the second device comprises: in response to a failure of a listen before talk procedure, determining to transmit the scheduling request (See abstract and Claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the determining to transmit the scheduling request to the second device comprises: in response to a failure of a listen before talk procedure, determining to transmit the scheduling request as taught by Alireza in the combined system of Babaei and Xu to increments a listen before talk counter based on a listen before talk procedure indicating a busy channel for an uplink transmission via a first bandwidth part (See abstract; lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 66: The combination of Babaei and Xu and Alireza disclose a first device.
Furthermore, Alireza discloses the first device, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the first device to: receive, from the second device, an indication of at least one cell associated with an identifier of scheduling request, and wherein the determining one or more cells comprises: determining the one or more cells of the at least one cell on which the physical downlink control channel monitoring is to be performed based on the identifier of the scheduling request and the association (See Para. 0318-0141l Beam failure recovery procedure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining the one or more cells of the at least one cell on which the physical downlink control channel monitoring is to be performed based on the identifier of the scheduling request and the association as taught by Alireza in the combined system of Babaei and Xu to increments a listen before talk counter based on a listen before talk procedure indicating a busy channel for an uplink transmission via a first bandwidth part (See abstract; lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 67: The combination of Babaei and Xu and Alireza disclose a first device.
Furthermore, Alireza discloses the first device, wherein the determining one or more cells comprises at least one of: determining a primary cell for a master cell group or determining a primary secondary cell for a secondary cell group (See Para. 0054; SCell, PCell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining the one or more cells of the at least one cell on which the physical downlink control channel monitoring is to be performed based on the identifier of the scheduling request and the association as taught by Alireza in the combined system of Babaei and Xu to increments a listen before talk counter based on a listen before talk procedure indicating a busy channel for an uplink transmission via a first bandwidth part (See abstract; lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 68: The combination of Babaei and Xu and Alireza disclose a first device.
Furthermore, Babaei discloses the first device, wherein dual connectivity is enabled, and wherein the determining one or more cells comprises: determining all of one or more cells in a cell group to which the cell where the scheduling request is transmitted belongs (See Para. 0166; selecting a beam).
Regarding claim 69: The combination of Babaei and Xu and Alireza disclose a first device.
Furthermore, Babaei discloses the first device, wherein the physical downlink control channel monitoring adaptation comprises at least one of search space set group switching, or physical downlink control channel skipping (See Para. 0179 & 0183; PDCCH monitoring skipping).
12. Claims 61-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babaei, in view of Xu, further in view of Tsai et al. (hereinafter referred as Tsai) US Patent No. 11, 239, 897 B2.
Regarding claim 61: The combination of Babaei and Xu disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of wherein one logical channel is associated with an identifier of the scheduling request, and wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the first device to: receive, from the second device, information of at least one cell index; and wherein the determining one or more cells comprises: determining at least one cell with the at least one cell index in an allowed cell list associated with the one logical channel.
However, Tsai from the same field of endeavor discloses receive, from the second device, information of at least one cell index; and wherein the determining one or more cells comprises: determining at least one cell with the at least one cell index in an allowed cell list associated with the one logical channel (See Table 2 & Para. 0046-0050 & 0061; the logicalchannelconfig contains both allowedservingcell…..of Servcellindex and schedulingrequestID. It further explains the schedulingrequestID indicates the SR configuration applicable to the logical channel, allowed cell list: allowedservingcells identifies cells using servcellindex; it also explains that available UL resources can be restricted according to the allowedservingcells).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include receive, from the second device, information of at least one cell index; and wherein the determining one or more cells comprises: determining at least one cell with the at least one cell index in an allowed cell list associated with the one logical channel as taught by Tsai in the combined system of Babaei and Xu to provide flexibility and configurability to optimize the network services and types (See Para. 003; line 1).
Regarding claim 62: The combination of Babaei and Xu and Tsai disclose a first device.
Furthermore, Babaei discloses the first device, wherein a plurality of logical channels are associated with an identifier of the scheduling request, and wherein the determining one or more cells comprising: determining, based on the identifier of the scheduling request, one or more cells in a plurality of allowed cell lists associated with the plurality of logical channels (See Para. 0478-0479; logical channel identifier).
Regarding claim 63: The combination of Babaei and Xu and Tsai disclose a first device.
Furthermore, Babaei discloses the first device, wherein the determined the one or more cells in the plurality of allowed cell lists comprises at least one of: all cells in the plurality of allowed cell lists (See Para. 0478-0479; for each logical channel, an allowedservingcells list specifying the serving cells permitted for the logical channel).
13. Claim 64 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babaei, in view of Xu, further in view of Zhou et al. (hereinafter referred as Zhou) US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0404693 A1.
Regarding claim 64: The combination of Babaei and Xu disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of wherein the determining to transmit the scheduling request to the second device comprises: in response to occurrence of beam failure recovery, determining to transmit the scheduling request to the second device.
However, Zhou from the same field of endeavor discloses wherein the determining to transmit the scheduling request to the second device comprises: in response to occurrence of beam failure recovery (See FIG. 28 & Para. 0416; wireless device initiates BFR after detecting beam failure instances), determining to transmit the scheduling request to the second device (See FIG. 28 & Para. 0416; the UE initiates BFR and triggers an SR based on initiating BFR).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining to transmit the scheduling request to the second device comprises: in response to occurrence of beam failure recovery, determining to transmit the scheduling request to the second device as taught by Zhou in the combined system of Babaei and Xu to implements a beam failure recovery procedure in a multicarrier communication system (See Para. 0041; line 3).
14. Claim 70 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babaei, in view of Agiwal et al. (hereinafter referred as Agiwal) US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0025742 A1.
Regarding claim 70: Babaei discloses a second device (See FIG. 15 & Para. 0170; a base station), comprising:
at least one processor (See FIG. 15 & Para. 0170; a base station includes CPU); and
at least one memory (See FIG. 15 & Para. 0170; a base station includes memory) including computer program code; the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the second device to:
receive, from a first device, a scheduling request during a physical downlink control channel monitoring adaptation for the first device (See FIG. 70, Para. 0135-0136 & 0714; the wireless device may transmit a scheduling request while skipping the monitoring the downlink control channel to a base station);
Babaei does not explicitly disclose determine a cell to transmit, to the first device, a grant for the scheduling request; and transmit the grant on the cell to the first device, regardless the physical downlink control channel monitoring adaptation.
However, Agiwal from the same field of endeavor discloses determine a cell to transmit, to the first device (See FIG. 3 & Para. 0074-0075; selects specific serving cell(s); SPcell, SR-transmission cell, PUCCH cell or gNB-signaled cell), a grant for the scheduling request (See FIG. 3 & Para. 0074-0075; pending SR in terms of the UL grant for new transmission not yet being sent by gNB); and
transmit the grant on the cell to the first device, regardless the physical downlink control channel monitoring adaptation (See FIG. 3 & Para. 0074-0075; gNB cancels/suspends/ignores PDCCH skipping on applicable serving cell(s) while SR is pending).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determine a cell to transmit, to the first device, a grant for the scheduling request; and transmit the grant on the cell to the first device, regardless the physical downlink control channel monitoring adaptation as taught by Agiwal in the system of Babaei to support higher data rates (See Para. 0009; lines 2-3).
15. Claim 71 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babaei, in view of Agiwal, further in view of Martin.
Regarding claim 71: The combination of Babaei and Agiwal disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of wherein the receiving a scheduling request during the physical downlink control channel monitoring adaptation comprises: receiving a scheduling request for a buffer status report during the physical downlink control channel monitoring adaptation.
However, Martin from the same field of endeavor discloses wherein the receiving a scheduling request during the physical downlink control channel monitoring adaptation comprises receiving a scheduling request for a buffer status report during the physical downlink control channel monitoring adaptation (See FIGs. 5-6 & Para. 0085-0088; determines whether a SR should be triggered as part of the BSR procedure. When no UL resources are available for the BSR, an SR is transmitted to obtain resources. transmitting an SR requesting uplink resources including resources for transmission of the BSR).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the receiving a scheduling request during the physical downlink control channel monitoring adaptation comprises: receiving a scheduling request for a buffer status report during the physical downlink control channel monitoring adaptation as taught by Martin in the combined system of Babaei and Agiwal Xu to improve service provisioning and reduce user and operator costs (See Para. 0003; lines 4-5).
16. Claim 72 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babaei, in view of Agiwal, further in view of Tsai.
Regarding claim 72: The combination of Babaei and Agiwal disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of wherein one logical channel is associated with an identifier of the scheduling request, and wherein the determining the cell to transmit the grant for the scheduling request comprises: determining, based on the identifier of the scheduling request, a cell in an allowed cell list associated with the one logical channel to transmit the grant.
However, Tsai from the same field of endeavor discloses wherein one logical channel is associated with an identifier of the scheduling request, and wherein the determining the cell to transmit the grant for the scheduling request comprises: determining, based on the identifier of the scheduling request, a cell in an allowed cell list associated with the one logical channel to transmit the grant (See Table 2 & Para. 0046-0050 & 0061; the logicalchannelconfig contains both allowedservingcell…..of Servcellindex and schedulingrequestID. It further explains the schedulingrequestID indicates the SR configuration applicable to the logical channel, allowed cell list: allowedservingcells identifies cells using servcellindex; it also explains that available UL resources can be restricted according to the allowedservingcells).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein one logical channel is associated with an identifier of the scheduling request, and wherein the determining the cell to transmit the grant for the scheduling request comprises: determining, based on the identifier of the scheduling request, a cell in an allowed cell list associated with the one logical channel to transmit the grant as taught by Tsai in the combined system of Babaei and Agiwal to provide flexibility and configurability to optimize the network services and types (See Para. 003; line 1).
17. Claim 73 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babaei, in view of Agiwal, further in view of Zhou.
Regarding claim 73: The combination of Babaei and Agiwal disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of wherein the receiving a scheduling request during the physical downlink control channel monitoring adaptation comprises: receiving the scheduling request for beam failure recovery during the physical downlink control channel monitoring adaptation.
However, Zhou from the same field of endeavor discloses wherein the receiving a scheduling request during the physical downlink control channel monitoring adaptation comprises receiving the scheduling request for beam failure recovery during the physical downlink control channel monitoring adaptation (See FIG. 28 & Para. 0416; wireless device initiates BFR after detecting beam failure instances), determining to transmit the scheduling request to the second device (See FIG. 28 & Para. 0416; the UE initiates BFR and triggers an SR based on initiating BFR).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the receiving a scheduling request during the physical downlink control channel monitoring adaptation comprises receiving the scheduling request for beam failure recovery during the physical downlink control channel monitoring adaptation as taught by Zhou in the combined system of Babaei and Agiwal to implements a beam failure recovery procedure in a multicarrier communication system (See Para. 0041; line 3).
18. Claims 74-75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babaei, in view of Agiwal, further in view of Alireza.
Regarding claim 74: The combination of Babaei and Agiwal disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of wherein the receiving a scheduling request during the physical downlink control channel monitoring adaptation comprises: receiving the scheduling request for a failure of a listen before talk procedure during the physical downlink control channel monitoring adaptation.
However, Alireza from the same field of endeavor discloses receiving the scheduling request for a failure of a listen before talk procedure during the physical downlink control channel monitoring adaptation (See abstract and Claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include receiving the scheduling request for a failure of a listen before talk procedure during the physical downlink control channel monitoring adaptation as taught by Alireza in the combined system of Babaei and Agiwal to increments a listen before talk counter based on a listen before talk procedure indicating a busy channel for an uplink transmission via a first bandwidth part (See abstract; lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 75: The combination of Babaei and Agiwal and Alireza disclose a second device.
Furthermore, Alireza discloses the second device, wherein dual connectivity is enabled, and wherein the determining a cell to transmit a grant for the scheduling request comprises: determining a cell in a cell group to which the cell where the scheduling request is transmitted belongs (See Para. 0166; selecting a beam).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein dual connectivity is enabled, and wherein the determining a cell to transmit a grant for the scheduling request comprises: determining a cell in a cell group to which the cell where the scheduling request is transmitted belongs as taught by Alireza in the combined system of Babaei and Agiwal to increments a listen before talk counter based on a listen before talk procedure indicating a busy channel for an uplink transmission via a first bandwidth part (See abstract; lines 1-2).
Conclusion
19. The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
A. Zhou et al. 2026/0143487 A1 (Title: Sidelink buffer status reporting) (See Abstract, Para. 0012 & 0037-0038).
B. Zewail et al. 2024/0314742 A1 (Title: shared resource pools between transmission) (See abstract, Para. 0006 & 00813-0016).
C. Shrestha et al. 2022/0038243 A1 (Title: TCP Host) (See FIG. 1, Para. 0046, 0050 & 0160).
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEWALE A AMBAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-1076. The examiner can normally be reached on M.F 6a.m.-2p.m..
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, Ian Moore can be reached on (571)272-3085. 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.
/MEWALE A AMBAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights