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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/6/24. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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 – 5, 9 – 15, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (US Publication 2026/0059542) disclosed (KR) 10-2022-0100939 (machine translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Choi teaches an apparatus and a method, comprising:
receiving, by a processor of an apparatus, a downlink control information (DCI) indicating a scheduling of a plurality of cells from a network node of a wireless network; (i.e. fig. 4 shows a UE may receive a DCI from a base station (s505, the DCI may include information about scheduled cell sets; see paragraph 139, 142, 143) (See Also; the DCI may indicate a set of scheduled cells or a combination of scheduled cells; see paragraphs 119 - 120)
determining, by the processor, a first cell among the plurality of cells according to a table indicating at least one mapping between the plurality of cells and the first cell; (i.e. a specific or reference cell may be determined from among the cells included in the scheduled set; see paragraphs 144) (see Also; a reference cell specified among the cells of a group may be determined based upon RRC information received about the cell group; see paragraphs 123, 124) and
counting, by the processor, a corresponding DCI size and a number of blind decodings (BDs) or control channel elements (CCEs) on the first cell. (i.e. the selected reference cell is utilized as a basis for counting BD and DCI size; see paragraphs 143, 144) (See Also; a specific cell (ref_cell) is selected among a scheduled cell group, BD and DCI size counting for the DCI that schedules all or part of the cell group may be performed only for the ref_cell; see paragraphs 124, 125)
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Choi teaches the method of Claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the processor, a radio resource control (RRC) configuration comprising the table from the network node. (i.e. fig. 4 shows an RRC parameter may be received by the base station (s501),; see paragraph 139) (see Also; the RRC parameter may comprise a configuration information for sets of cells and may be configured specifically for a UE; see paragraphs 121 - 123)
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Choi teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the table is a pre-defined table stored in the apparatus.(i.e. fig. 4 shows an RRC parameter may be received by the base station (s501) which is then utilized for multi-cell scheduling; see paragraph 139)
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Choi teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the table comprises a plurality of mappings, and each mapping indicates a respective set of cells for one multi-cell scheduling DCI and which cell that the corresponding DCI size and the number of BDs or CCEs are to be counted on. (i.e. the RRC parameter may comprise a configuration information for sets of cells and may be configured specifically for a UE; see paragraphs 121 - 123) (see Also; a reference cell specified among the cells of a group may be determined based upon RRC information received about the cell group; see paragraphs 123, 124) (See Also; a specific cell (ref_cell) is selected among a scheduled cell group, BD and DCI size counting for the DCI that schedules all or part of the cell group may be performed only for the ref_cell; see paragraphs 124, 125)
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Choi teaches the method of Claim 1, further comprising: monitoring, by the processor, a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) for receiving the DCI; wherein the counting of the corresponding DCI size and the number of BDs or CCEs on the first cell is performed during the PDCCH monitoring. (i.e. the PDCCH carries the DCI to the UE, wherein the BD and size counting occurs during monitoring; see paragraphs 41, 71, 84 – 86, 144)
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Choi teaches The method of Claim 1, wherein the DCI comprises a DCI format 0_0 or 0_1 for scheduling of a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission on at least one of the plurality of cells. (i.e. the DCI formats supported over the PDCCH include 0_0 and 0_1 for PUSCH scheduling; see paragraphs 42 - 44)
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Choi teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the DCI comprises a DCI format 1_0 or 1_1 for scheduling of a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) reception on at least one of the plurality of cells. (i.e. the DCI formats supported over the PDCCH include 1_0 and 1_1 for PDSCH scheduling; see paragraphs 42 - 44)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claims 6 – 8 and 16 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Choi et al. (US Publication 2026/0059542) disclosed (KR) 10-2022-0100939 (machine translation) in view of Hsich et al. (2024/0057109) disclosed in 63/371,232.
Regarding claim 6 and 16, Choi discloses all the recited limitations of claim 1 and 10 as described previously from which claim 6 and 16 depends. Choi does not teach wherein the DCI corresponds to a one-segment DCI structure or a two-segment DCI structure.
However, Hsich teaches wherein the DCI corresponds to a one-segment DCI structure or a two-segment DCI structure. (i.e. Hsich discloses a DCI may have two types of structure, 1 segment and 2 segment; see paragraph 39)
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed utilize the DCI structure types of Hsich into the single DCI of Choi. Both Hsich and Choi teach multi-cell scheduling in a single DCI.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Choi to improve network performance by improving scheduling efficiency.
Regarding claim 7 and 17, Choi discloses all the recited limitations of claim 6 and 16 as described previously from which claim 7 and 17 depends. Choi does not teach wherein the one-segment DCI structure comprises a common bit field and a plurality of designated bit fields corresponding to the plurality of cells.
However, Hsich teaches wherein the one-segment DCI structure comprises a common bit field and a plurality of designated bit fields corresponding to the plurality of cells. (i.e. Hsich discloses a DCI may have two types of structure, 1 segment and 2 segment wherein the one-segment comprises a common and several designated bit fields corresponding to the multiple cells scheduled; see paragraph 39 and 40)
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed utilize the DCI structure types of Hsich into the single DCI of Choi. Both Hsich and Choi teach multi-cell scheduling in a single DCI.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Choi to improve network performance by improving scheduling efficiency.
Regarding claim 8 and 18, Choi discloses all the recited limitations of claim 6 and 16 as described previously from which claim 8 and 18 depends. Choi does not teach wherein the two-segment DCI structure comprises a common bit field, a first part of a plurality of designated bit fields corresponding to the plurality of cells, and a second part of the plurality of designated bit fields.
However, Hsich teaches wherein the two-segment DCI structure comprises a common bit field, a first part of a plurality of designated bit fields corresponding to the plurality of cells, and a second part of the plurality of designated bit fields. (i.e. Hsich discloses a DCI may have two types of structure, 1 segment and 2 segment wherein the two-segment comprises a common and a first portion comprising several designated bit fields corresponding to the multiple cells scheduled and a second portion of the designated bit fields; see paragraph 39 and 42)
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed utilize the DCI structure types of Hsich into the single DCI of Choi. Both Hsich and Choi teach multi-cell scheduling in a single DCI.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Choi to improve network performance by improving scheduling efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J LOPATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5158. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-7 EST.
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 Kundu can be reached at (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 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.
ROBERT J. LOPATA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2471
/ROBERT J LOPATA/
August 13, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights