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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-7 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #100bis-e R1-200XXXX e-meeting, April 20-30, 2020 Agenda item: 7.2.2.2.1 Source: Moderator (Nokia) Title: Summary of [100b-e-NR-unlic-NRU-ChAcc-02] Email discussion/approval on clarifications to UL to DL COT sharing hereinafter known as Nokia in view of Lundstrom et al, application no. 2006/0268713, hereinafter known as Lundstrom. (Both IDS art).
As to claim 1, Nokia discloses a user equipment (UE), comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (Nokia, page 5, UE with processor and memory as well known in the art) and configured to cause the UE to: transmit a first configured grant (CG) uplink (UL) transmission, wherein the first CG UL transmission initiates a channel occupancy time (COT) (Nokia, page 5, 4.1.3, gNB provides COT with configuration grant), wherein; the first CG UL transmission includes a first CG uplink control information (UCI) (CG-UCI), and wherein the first CG-UCI indicates a first offset, a first duration, or a combination thereof (Nokia, page 5, section 4.1.3, Uplink grant with offset and duration); determine a first starting time for downlink (DL) transmission based on the first offset, the first duration, or the combination thereof and a time that the first CG-UCI is transmitted (Noka, page 5-6, section 4.1.3, DL transmission calculated based on offset and duration); and determine a second starting time for DL transmission, a second duration or a combination thereof based on: whether the delay budget is less than the threshold value; the first offset, the first duration, an un-transmitted portion of the UL ADU, packet, or the combination thereof; or a combination thereof (Nokia, page 5 and 6, starting at proposal 1 and 4.1.3, Multiple transmission slots set up for configuration based on associated offset and duration further based on the first offset and duration), wherein: the second starting time is different than the first starting time, the second duration is different than the first duration, or a combination thereof (Nokia, page 5 and 6, starting at proposal 1 and 4.1.3, table of possible plural transmission slots with associated duration and offsets); the UE does not expect to receive transmission in the COT prior to the second starting time; and the UE does not expect to receive DL transmission in the COT for a duration larger than the second duration (Nokia, page 5 and 6, 4.1.3, the computed start time, offset and duration invariably indicates no transmission receive outside of the slot). Nokia does not disclose however Lundstrom discloses determine whether a delay budget for an UL application data unit (ADU), packet, or a combination thereof is less than a threshold value (Lunstrom, [0033]-[0036], [0048], allowable scheduling delay for packet based on delay budget and priority).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nokia to include the limitations of determine whether a delay budget for an UL application data unit (ADU), packet, or a combination thereof is less than a threshold value as taught by Lundstrom. Using variable delay budget of packets allows flexible scheduling to account for divergent quality of services needs of packets.
As to claim 2, Nokia discloses wherein a second CG-UCI is included in a second CG UL transmission, and the second CG-UCI indicates a second offset, the second duration, or a combination thereof (Nokia, page 5 and 6, starting at proposal 1 and 4.1.3, Multiple transmission slots set up for configuration based on associated offset and duration further based on the first offset and duration).
As to claim 2., Nokia discloses wherein the second CG UL transmission occurs at least a certain time after the first CG UL transmission (Nokia, page 5 and 6, starting at proposal 1 and 4.1.3, Multiple transmission slots set up sequentially).
As to claim 4, Nokia discloses wherein the second starting time occurs at least a certain time earlier than the first starting time (Nokia, page 5 and 6, starting at proposal 1 and 4.1.3, Multiple transmission slots set up for configuration based on associated offset and duration further based on the first offset and duration, different offset for each slot means different start times).
As to claim 5, Nokia discloses wherein the second duration is greater than the first duration (Nokia, page 5 and 6, starting at proposal 1 and 4.1.3, Multiple transmission slots set up for configuration based on associated offset and duration further based on the first offset and duration, different durations for each slot means different durations)
As to claim 6, Nokia discloses wherein the threshold value is configured by higher layer signaling (Nokia, page 5, 4.1.3, threshold and other values configuring by higher layer)
As to claim 7, Nokia discloses wherein the delay budget is exceeded (Lundstrom, [0033]-[0036], when delay budget is exceeded, taking mitigating steps).
As to claim 15, the claim is rejected as applied to claim 1 above by Nokia in view of Lundstrom.
As to claim 16-20, the claims are rejected as applied to claims 1-5 respectively above by Nokia in view of Lundstrom.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nokia in view of Lundstrom further in view of Karampatsis et al, application no. 2016/0112896, hereinafter known as Kara.
As to claim 8, Nokia and Lundstrom discloses the UE of claim 7. Nokia and Lundstrom does not disclose however Kara discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to drop a transmission of a remainder of the UL ADU, packet, or the combination thereof (Kara, [0481], Dropping packet when it exceeds delay budget).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nokia and Lundstrom to include the limitations of wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to drop a transmission of a remainder of the UL ADU, packet, or the combination thereof as taught by Kara. Using variable delay budget of packets allows flexible scheduling to account for divergent quality of services needs of packets.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GAUTAM SHARMA whose telephone number is (571)270-7182. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-8pm.
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, Hassan Phillips can be reached at 571-272-3940. 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.
/GAUTAM SHARMA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2467
/HASSAN A PHILLIPS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2467
