DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
Claims 1, 8, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim et al. (US 2025/0274930, “Shim”) in view of Papasakellariou (US 2022/0201726, “Papasakellariou”) and further in view of Matsumura et al. (US 2023/0379932, “Matsumura”).
Regarding claim 1, Shim discloses a method of transmitting and receiving a signal by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
- receiving downlink control information (DCI) for scheduling physical downlink shared channels (PDSCHs) or physical uplink shared channels (PUSCHs) on different cells (See 2004 & 2006 Fig.20A, UE receives DCI including multi-cell scheduling information for PDSCH or PUSCH according to scheduling); and
- receiving the PDSCHs on the different cells or transmitting the PUSCHs on the different cells based on the DCI (See 2018 Fig.20B and ¶.402, based on the received DCI, the UE may determine whether it is multi-cell scheduling or single-cell scheduling, at least one cell scheduled, and at least one piece of scheduling information. The UE may receive a PDSCH from the base station or transmit a PUSCH to the base station, based on scheduling information).
Shim discloses that DCI includes RV filed and HARQ process number (HPN) (Shim, See Fig.12 and Figs.14-16,
PNG
media_image1.png
210
847
media_image1.png
Greyscale
), but does not explicitly disclose what Papasakellariou discloses,
- wherein the DCI includes a number of redundancy version (RV) fields, equal to a number of the PDSCHs or a number of the PUSCHs (Papasakellariou, See ¶.122, the DCI format includes a separate RV field, when provided, and a separate NDI field for a TB in each PUSCH transmission. In order for a UE to know a DCI format size prior to decoding, the number of separate NDI fields and RV fields is equal to the maximum number of PUSCH transmissions that can be scheduled by the DCI format as determined by the entries of the TDRA table).
Shim and Papasakellariou do not explicitly disclose what Matsumura discloses,
- the DCI includes a number of hybrid automatic repeat and request acknowledgement (HARQ) process number (HPN) fields, equal to the number of the PDSCHs or the number of the PUSCHs (Matsumura, See ¶.142, the DCI may be similar to ACK for a PUSCH to carry a MAC CE in SCell BFR. The end of the signal corresponding to the ACK for the PUSCH may be a last symbol of PDCCH reception with a DCI format to schedule PUSCH transmission having the same HARQ process number (HPN) as an HARQ process number for transmission of a first PUSCH, the DCI format having a toggled NDI field value; See further ¶.143).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “wherein the DCI includes a number of redundancy version (RV) fields, equal to a number of the PDSCHs or a number of the PUSCHs” as taught by Papasakellariou and “the DCI includes a number of hybrid automatic repeat and request acknowledgement (HARQ) process number (HPN) fields, equal to the number of the PDSCHs or the number of the PUSCHs” as taught by Matsumura into the system of Shim, so that it provides a way for a UE to know a DCI format size prior to decoding (Papasakellariou, See ¶.122) and having the same HARQ process number (HPN) as that of PUSCH (Matsumura, See ¶.143).
Regarding claim 8, Shim does not explicitly disclose what Papasakellariou discloses “a bit number of all HPN fields is configured by a maximum value of sums of sizes of HPN fields calculated for each combination of all or some of the different cells (Papasakellariou, See ¶.122-123, maximum number of HARQ processes).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “a bit number of all HPN fields is configured by a maximum value of sums of sizes of HPN fields calculated for each combination of all or some of the different cells” as taught by Papasakellariou into the system of Shim, so that it provides a way of increasing the HPN for the TB modulo the maximum number of HARQ processes (Papasakellariou, See ¶.123).
Regarding claim 10, it is a UE claim corresponding to the method claim 1, except the limitations “at least one transceiver, one processor, one memory (See Fig.21)” and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claim 14, it is a base station claim corresponding to the claim 10 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim in view of Papasakellariou and Matsumura and further in view of Yi et al. (US 2023/0217456, “Yi”).
Regarding claim 2, Shim, Papasakellariou, and Matsumura do not explicitly disclose what Yi discloses “each of the RV fields is configured with 1 bit per transport block (TB) (Yi, See ¶.277, each RV bit of the plurality of RV bits may correspond to a transport block (TB) of a cell of the plurality of scheduled cells).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply “each of the RV fields is configured with 1 bit per transport block (TB)” by Yi into the system of Shim, Papasakellariou, and Matsumura, so that it provides a way for the wireless device to determine that the RV field for the cell is set to the predefined value (Yi, See ¶.277).
Regarding claim 3, Shim, Papasakellariou, and Matsumura do not explicitly disclose what Yi discloses “the RV fields include: a first RB field configured with 1 bit per TB for a PDSCH or a PUSCH configured to transmit two transport blocks (TBs); and a second RB field configured with 2 bits per TB for a PDSCH or a PUSCH configured to transmit 1 TB (Yi, See ¶.277, where the RV field may indicate an entry of one or more RV entries for a plurality of TB s of the plurality of scheduled cells. A value of RV field may indicate an entry, where the entry may include/comprise/indicate a second predefined value (e.g., 1)).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, Shim and Yi disclose “each of the RV fields is configured with 2 bits per transport block (TB) based on one PDSCH or PUSCH being scheduled by the DCI (Shim, See 1215 Fig.12, 2 bit RV field for single PDSCH) and is configured with 1 bit per TB based on a plurality of PDSCHs or PUSCHs being scheduled by the DCI (Shim, See 1262 Fig.12, 1 bit of RV field for first PDSCH; See 1605 Fig.16; Yi, See ¶.277).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Claims 5-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim in view of Papasakellariou and Matsumura and further in view of MolavianJazi et al. (US 2024/0040429, “MolavianJazi”; Provisional 63/391,198, hereinafter “Prov’198”).
Regarding claim 5, Shim, Papasakellariou, and Matsumura do not explicitly disclose what MolavianJazi discloses “a bit number of all RV fields is configured by a maximum value of sums of bit numbers of RV fields calculated for each combination of all or some of the different cells (MolavianJazi, See ¶.231, when a HARQ process number (HPN) field or a redundancy version (RV) field, or a new data indicator (NDI) field are separately provided for each scheduled cell (from a maximum number N of supported/configured scheduled cells for a scheduling cell) in an MC-DCI format and a combination of those fields, such as all of those fields, have same predetermined values for a subset of co-scheduled cells, such as HPN all 1s such as 15 (when counting from 0 to 15 for a HPN field of 4 bits), RV 1, and NDI 1, for each cell in the subset of cells, the subset of co-scheduled cells can be assumed as not being scheduled by the MC-DCI format. The MC-DCI format jointly schedules only the remaining cells from the set of co-scheduled cells; See further ¶.80 and ¶.93; Prov’198,
PNG
media_image2.png
188
667
media_image2.png
Greyscale
).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply “a bit number of all RV fields is configured by a maximum value of sums of bit numbers of RV fields calculated for each combination of all or some of the different cells” as taught by MolavianJazi into the system of Shim, Papasakellariou, and Matsumura, so that it provides a way for the MC-DCI format to jointly schedule only the remaining cells from the set of co-scheduled cells (MolavianJazi, See ¶.231).
Regarding claim 6, Shim, Papasakellariou, and Matsumura do not explicitly disclose what MolavianJazi discloses “a bit number of each of the RV fields is determined based on a bit number of an RV field of the DCI for scheduling a single PDSCH or PUSCH within a corresponding single cell (See ¶.280, when a predetermined value of a MCS field is used to indicate that the MC-DCI format is used for scheduling on a subset of cells and the MC-DCI format includes separate HPN, RV, NDI, and so on fields for each scheduled cell, the bits of the HPN/RV/NDI/ . . . fields of non-scheduled cells can be interpreted as providing another functionality such as a BWP indicator, a SRS triggering, SCell dormancy indication, and so on or, in general, any functionality that the UE is configured to be provided when MC-DCI format performs scheduling on a single cell, as for example a DCI format 1_1 or DCI format 1_2, and to not be provided when the MC-DCI format performs scheduling on more than one cells).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, Shim, Papasakellariou, and Matsumura do not explicitly disclose what MolavianJazi discloses “bit numbers of the HPN fields are configured equally, and the bit numbers are determined based on a number of cells in which the PDSCH or the PDSCH is actually scheduled from among the different cells (MolavianJazi, See ¶.231, when a HARQ process number (HPN) field is provided for each scheduled cell (from a maximum number N of supported/configured scheduled cells for a scheduling cell) in an MC-DCI format and have same predetermined values for a subset of co-scheduled cells, such as HPN all 1s such as 15 (when counting from 0 to 15 for a HPN field of 4 bits), RV 1, and NDI 1, for each cell in the subset of cells, the subset of co-scheduled cells can be assumed as not being scheduled by the MC-DCI format. The MC-DCI format jointly schedules only the remaining cells from the set of co-scheduled cells; Prov’198 as shown in the rejection of claim 5).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “bit numbers of the HPN fields are configured equally, and the bit numbers are determined based on a number of cells in which the PDSCH or the PDSCH is actually scheduled from among the different cells” as taught by MolavianJazi into the system of Shim, Papasakellariou, and Matsumura, so that it provides a way of having same predetermined values for a subset of co-scheduled cells (MolavianJazi, See ¶.131).
Regarding claim 9, Shim, Papasakellariou, and Matsumura do not explicitly disclose what MolavianJazi discloses “a bit number of each of the HPN fields is determined based on a bit number of an HPN field of the DCI for scheduling a single PDSCH or PUSCH within a corresponding single cell (MolavianJazi, See ¶.267, an MC-DCI format when used for scheduling one single cell can be (pre)determined or configured to use an unrestricted value set, such as 4 or 5 bits for HPN to indicate one out of 16 or 32 HARQ processes, as used in a legacy single-cell DCI format, such as DCI format 0_1 or 1_1; Prov’198,
PNG
media_image3.png
172
682
media_image3.png
Greyscale
).”
Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jung H Park whose telephone number is 571-272-8565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 AM-3:00 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 on 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.
/JUNG H PARK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights