DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the claims filed on: 10/07/2024.
Claims 1-9 and 11-14 are pending for Examination.
Claims 10 and 15 were canceled by preliminary amendment.
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 Statements
The information disclosure statements (IDS’) submitted on: 12/16/2024 and 05/18/2026 are determined to be compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, these IDS’ are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation – Alternative Claim Language
The claims of the instant application are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the BRI of an alternative claim limitation or term can be determined to be the least-limiting interpretation, consistent with the specification. In this context, the term “or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to alternatively be: one or the other (i.e., A or B), but not both (i.e., not A and B). The term “and/or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to be: “and” or alternatively “or,” but not both, as this would not make sense. In this context, the forward-slash “/” is equivalent to the alternative “or.” Likewise, the alternative terms “at least one of,” “one or more of,” and the like, followed by multiple alternative claim limitations can be reasonably interpreted to be only “one of” a group of alternative claim limitations.
Prior art disclosing any one of multiple alternative claim limitations discloses matter within the scope of the claimed invention. "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See MPEP 2131.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Independent claim 11 recites, in part: “…a processor configured to store perform operations by executing the instructions…,” (Emphasis added) which includes an obvious grammatical error. The Examiner recommends Applicant amend claim 11 to instead recite: “a processor configured to stored instructions…, to thereby cure all identified deficiencies associated with claim 11..
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. 2024/0292409 A1, Xiong et al. (hereinafter “Xiong”) in view of US PG Pub. 2022/0046673 A1, Takeda et al. (hereinafter “Takeda”).
With respect to claim 1, Xiong teaches:
A method of receiving a signal by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system (paras. [0024]-[0035], [0056]-[0058], and [0097]; UE 101/102 communicating with BS/APs 111/112/106 of Fig. 1A —a UE can receive a signal, i.e., receive beam-forming signals, from an AN/BS via the UE’s antenna panels), the method comprising:
detecting a downlink control information (DCI) from a monitored PDCCH (paras. [0111]-[0112], [0123], and [0198]; and Fig. 5 —a UE can receive a DCI of a monitored scheduling PDCCH, which may be used to schedule multiple PUSCH/PDSCHs for multiple, different cells, i.e., PUSCH#0 of CC0 and PUSCH#1 of CC1 as depicted in Fig. 5),
wherein the DCI supports multi-cell scheduling based on cell combinations for a plurality of cells configured for the UE (paras. [0111]-[0112], [0198]-[0199], [0202]-[0206], and [0210][0215]; and Figs. 5-13 —a DCI of a PDCCH can be used for scheduling various cell combinations/groups, i.e., cells or cell groups of CC0, CC1, CC2, etc., of multiple cells configured for various UE communications, i.e., multi-cell/cell group PUSCH transmissions and/or multi-cell PDSCH receptions, as depicted in Figs. 5-13 —the Examiner notes that a cell combination can be interpreted to be equivalent to a particular cell group of one or more CCs), and
wherein a payload size of the DCI is determined based on a first cell combination in which a total number of DCI bits required for co-scheduled cells is maximum from among the cell combinations (paras. [0202], [0232], [0286], [0320], and [0332] —a DCI payload/common-field bit-width can be determined to be a maximum bit-width of all scheduled cells of a particular cell group, i.e., a cell combination, of multiple cell groups).
However, Xiong does not explicitly teach:
monitoring PDCCH candidates; and
detecting DCI by monitoring the PDCCH candidates,
Takeda does teach:
monitoring PDCCH candidates (paras. [0069]-[0086] and [0123]-[0124]; Figs. 5 and 9 —a UE 120 can receive a configuration for monitoring PDCCH candidates 510, and then utilize the configuration to monitor the corresponding PDCCH candidates for DCI associated with multi-carrier DL/UL scheduling 515, i.e., blocks 910 and 920); and
detecting DCI by monitoring the PDCCH candidates (paras. [0088]-[0089] and [0125]; Figs. 5 and 9 —a UE 120 can receive/detect DCI for scheduling multi-carrier DL /UL communications 520 by monitoring configured PDCCH candidates, i.e., block 930),
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiong’s detection of a DCI for multi-cell scheduling from a PDCCH to include monitoring configured scheduling PDCCH candidates for multi-carrier scheduling DCI, as taught by Takeda.
The motivation for doing so would have been to explicitly include PDCCH candidate monitoring in the DCI detection process, a procedure which is commonly known to those of ordinary skill in the art, as disclosed by Takeda (paras. [0069]-[0089] and [0123]-[0125]; Figs. 5 and 9).
With respect to claim 3, Xiong in view of Takeda teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein cells co-scheduled through the DCI are indicated as one of the cell combinations (Xiong: paras. [0119], [0122] —a DCI scheduling multiple cells can be used to schedule a cell group, i.e., a cell combination, where the same DCI scheduling information can be applied to all cells of the group).
With respect to claim 4, Xiong in view of Takeda teaches:
The method of claim 1,
wherein the DCI includes first DCI field-related information for each of a first cell and a second cell which are co-scheduled, and
wherein, based on that the first cell has a lower serving cell index than the second cell, the first DCI field-related information for the first cell is located before the first DCI field-related information for the second cell in the DCI (Xiong: paras. [0014], [0121]-[0127], [0198]-[0210], and [0219]; Figs. 6, 8-9, and 11-12 —the DCI can include multi-cell scheduling information for each of at least a first cell and a second cell, i.e., cells of both CC0 and CC1, where a cell with the lowest cell index can be located/scheduled before a cell not having the lowest cell index, i.e., a first cell/CC0 can be scheduled for a first PUSCH#0/PDSCH#0, whereas a second cell/CC1 can be scheduled with a later, second PUSCH#1/PDSCH#1).
With respect to claim 5, Xiong in view of Takeda teaches:
The method of claim 4, wherein the first DCI field includes at least one of a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) field, a new data indicator (NDI) field, a redundancy version (RV) field, a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process ID field, a frequency domain resource allocation (FDRA) field, a time domain resource allocation (TDRA) field, or a transmission power command (TPC) field for a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (Xiong: paras. [0164], [0219], and [0255] —a first DCI field can include any of a FDRA field, a TDRA field, a MCS field, etc. —the alternative terms “at least one of” and “or” only requires examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative, for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation —Alternative Claim Language section).
With respect to claim 11, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 11 is directed to a device for wireless communication comprising a memory and a processor (Xiong: UE 101/102 of Fig. 1A and UE 302/400 of Figs. 3-4 —a UE 400 can comprise a processor 412/414 and a memory/storage device 440). As such, claim 11 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Xiong in view of Takeda, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 12, Xiong in view of Takeda teaches:
The device of claim 11, further comprising:
a transceiver configured to transmit or receive a wireless signal under control of the processor, wherein the device includes a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system (Xiong: paras. [0090]-[0099]; UE 101/102 of Fig. 1A and UE 302/400 of Figs. 3-4 —a UE 302 can comprise a modem platform 310 having transceiver circuitry 318/320 capable of wireless communications 306 under control of a processing circuitry 312/314/316 —the alternative term “or” only requires examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative, for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation —Alternative Claim Language section).
With respect to claim 13, Xiong in view of Takeda teaches:
The device of claim 11, wherein the device includes an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) or a digital signal processing device, for controlling the UE (Xiong: paras. [0092], [0094]-[0098], and [0101]; UE 101/102 of Fig. 1A and UE 302/400 of Figs. 3-4 —a UE 302 can comprise application processing circuitry 312, which is interpreted to be equivalent to an ASIC, and digital baseband circuitry 316, which is interpreted to be equivalent to a digital signal processing device —the alternative term “or” only requires examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative, for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation —Alternative Claim Language section).
With respect to claim 14, Xiong teaches:
A method of transmitting a signal by a base station (BS) in a wireless communication system (paras. [0024], [0034]-[0035], [0056]-[0058], and [0099]; BS/AP 111/112/106 communicating with a UE 101/102 of Fig. 1A; and AN 304 of Fig. 3 —a BS/AP/AN can transmit a signal to a UE via the BS’s antenna panels), the method comprising:
generating downlink control information (DCI); and
transmitting the DCI to a user equipment (UE) over the PDCCH (paras. [0111]-[0112], [0123], [0198], [0220] and [0250]; and Fig. 5 —gNB can generate and transmit a scheduling DCI in a PDCCH to a UE, which can be used to schedule multiple PUSCH/PDSCHs for multiple, different cells, i.e., PUSCH#0 of CC0 and PUSCH#1 of CC1 as depicted in Fig. 5), to the UE,
wherein the DCI supports multi-cell scheduling based on cell combinations for a plurality of cells configured for the UE (paras. [0111]-[0112], [0198]-[0199], [0202]-[0206], and [0210][0215]; and Figs. 5-13 —a DCI of a PDCCH can be used for scheduling various cell combinations/groups, i.e., cells or cell groups of CC0, CC1, CC2, etc., of multiple cells configured for various UE communications, i.e., multi-cell/cell group PUSCH transmissions and/or multi-cell PDSCH receptions, as depicted in Figs. 5-13 —the Examiner notes that a cell combination can be interpreted to be equivalent to a particular cell group of one or more CCs), and
wherein a payload size of the DCI is determined based on a first cell combination in which a total number of DCI bits required for co-scheduled cells is maximum from among the cell combinations paras. [0202], [0232], [0286], [0320], and [0332] —a DCI payload/common-field bit-width can be determined to be a maximum bit-width of all scheduled cells of a particular cell group, i.e., a cell combination, of multiple cell groups.
However, Xiong does not explicitly teach:
transmitting the DCI based on at least one of physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) candidates of a user equipment (UE).
Takeda does teach:
transmitting DCI based on at least one of physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) candidates of a user equipment (UE) (paras. [0069]-[0089] and [0123]-[0125]; Figs. 5 and 9 —a BS can configure a UE 120 for monitoring PDCCH candidates 510, and then transmit a DCI associated with multi-carrier DL/UL scheduling 515 to the UE in at least one of the corresponding PDCCH candidates, i.e., blocks 910 and 920).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiong’s transmission of a DCI for multi-cell scheduling via the PDCCH, to include transmitting the DCI in at least one of multiple scheduling PDCCH candidates for multi-carrier scheduling DCI, as taught by Takeda.
The motivation for doing so would have been to explicitly include utilization of multiple PDCCH candidates for transmission of multi-cell DCI, as disclosed by Takeda (paras. [0069]-[0089] and [0123]-[0125]; Figs. 5 and 9).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong in view of Takeda, in further view of US PG Pub. 2025/0254682 A1, Lei.
With respect to claim 2, Xiong in view of Takeda teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Xiong in view of Takeda does not explicitly teach:
wherein a payload of the DCI is determined based on a summed size of all DCI fields for the first cell combination.
Lei does teach:
wherein a payload of the DCI is determined based on a summed size of all DCI fields for a first cell combination (paras. [0048]-[0050] and [0058]-[0059] —a payload size of a multicarrier DCI can be determined by summing each FDRA field size corresponding to each cell of a particular carrier/cell combination, i.e., summing a number of RBs per cell to determine a total number of RBs and a total corresponding payload bit-size of the scheduling DCI’s payload).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiong in view of Takeda’s detection of a DCI for multi-cell scheduling from a PDCCH to also include payload size determination for a multi-cell DCI, as taught by Lei.
The motivation for doing so would have been to enable real-time payload size determination for a DCI scheduling multi-cells, which can employ different DCI formats, as disclosed by Lei (paras. [0048]-[0050] and [0058]-[0059]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong in view of Takeda, in further view of US PG Pub. 2023/0276441 A1, Wang et al. (hereinafter “Wang”).
With respect to claim 6, Xiong in view of Takeda teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Xiong in view of Takeda do not explicitly teach:
wherein transmission or reception of a scheduled signal is performed only for remaining cells excluding at least one invalid cell from among cells co-scheduled through the DCI.
Wang does teach:
wherein transmission or reception of a scheduled signal is performed only for remaining cells excluding at least one invalid cell from among cells co-scheduled through the DCI (para. [0186] —transmission of a scheduled PDSCH may be performed only for valid cell, i.e. for cell 1 (8 entries), but not an invalid cell, i.e., for cell 2 (4 entries), such as when a TDRA field size is 3-bits (7 entries via bit-string “111”) and only accommodates certain cells).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiong in view of Takeda’s PUSCH/PDSCH transmissions scheduled with a multi-cell DCI, to further include exclusion of invalid cells among co-scheduled cells, i.e., based on TDRA field configuration, as taught by Wang.
The motivation for doing so would have been to better recognize co-scheduled cells that are unable to be accommodated for, according to DCI field configurations, as disclosed by Wang (para. [0186]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong in view of Takeda and Wang, in yet further view of US PG Pub. 2023/0129120 A1, MolavianJazi et al. (hereinafter “MolavianJazi”).
With respect to claim 7, Xiong in view of Takeda and Wang teaches the method of claim 6.
However, Xiong in view of Takeda and Wang does not explicitly teach:
wherein the at least one invalid cell includes at least one of a deactivated secondary cell (SCell), a cell operating as a dormant bandwidth part (BWP), a cell of which resources allocated through the DCI overlap semi-static resources in which uplink (UL)/downlink (DL) directions are configured differently, and a cell of which frequency resource information indicated by the DCI is invalid.
MolavianJazi does teach:
wherein the at least one invalid cell includes at least one of a deactivated secondary cell (SCell), a cell operating as a dormant bandwidth part (BWP), a cell of which resources allocated through the DCI overlap semi-static resources in which uplink (UL)/downlink (DL) directions are configured differently, and a cell of which frequency resource information indicated by the DCI is invalid (paras. [0115], [0118]-[0120], [0257], [0321], [0340], and [0350]—an invalid cell for multi-cell scheduling can be determined to be a deactivated SCell, a cell operating as an inactive/dormant BWP, or a cell with overlapped semi-static DCI resources with differing UL/DL configurations —the alternative term “at least one of” only requires examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative, for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation —Alternative Claim Language section).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiong in view of Takeda and Wang’s multi-cell DCI, to further include determining invalid cells for multi-cell scheduling based on various cell ineligibility criteria, as taught by MolavianJazi.
The motivation for doing so would have been improve muti-cell scheduling by eliminating, i.e., declaring invalid, ineligible candidate cells based on known invalidity criteria, as disclosed by MolavianJazi (paras. [0115], [0118]-[0120], [0257], [0321], [0340], and [0350]).
With respect to claim 8, Xiong in view of Takeda and Wang teaches the method of claim 6.
However, Xiong in view of Takeda and Wang does not explicitly teach:
wherein hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) information is configured for remaining cells excluding the at least one invalid cell or is configured to include negative acknowledgement (NACK) information for the at least one invalid cell.
MolavianJazi does teach:
wherein hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) information is configured for remaining cells excluding the at least one invalid cell or is configured to include negative acknowledgement (NACK) information for the at least one invalid cell (paras. [0349]-[0350] —a UE can be configured to transmit HARQ NACK information for a cell determined to be invalid among a group of co-scheduled cells —the alternative term “or” only requires examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative, for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation —Alternative Claim Language section).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiong in view of Takeda and Wang’s multi-cell DCI, to further include when a UE determines an invalid cell(s) of a group of co-scheduled cells, transmitting a NACK to the network indicating such, as taught by MolavianJazi.
The motivation for doing so would have been improve muti-cell scheduling by declaring ineligible candidate cells invalid utilizing UE HARQ feedback, as disclosed by MolavianJazi (paras. [0349]-[0350]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong in view of Takeda and Wang, in yet further view of US PG Pub. 2025/0039901 A1, Li et al. (hereinafter “Li”).
With respect to claim 9, Xiong in view of Takeda and Wang teaches the method of claim 6.
However, Xiong in view of Takeda and Wang does not explicitly teach:
wherein DCI field values for the at least one invalid cell in the DCI are configured based on information for a specific bandwidth part (BWP).
Li does teach:
wherein DCI field values for the at least one invalid cell in the DCI are configured based on information for a specific bandwidth part (BWP) (paras. [0040]-[0041], [0045], [0047]-[0048], [0061], and [0188]-[0192] —DCI field values can be indicated per bwp and a cell associated with a specific BWP can be determined to be invalid based on various preconfigured conditions, such as when a BWP is dormant, a BWP ID or SCS of a scheduling carrier does not match, etc.).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiong in view of Takeda and Wang’s multi-cell DCI, to further include determining DCI field values for an invalid cell(s) in the DCI based on corresponding eligible BWP criteria for multi-cell scheduling, as taught by Li.
The motivation for doing so would have been improve muti-cell scheduling by declaring invalid, ineligible candidate cells based on known BWP validity criteria, as disclosed by Li (paras. [0040]-[0041], [0045], [0047]-[0048], [0061], and [0188]-[0192]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure is as follows:
US Patent No. 12,598,621 B2, Lee et al.: teaches solutions associated with multi-cell DCI scheduling including various bit-width determinations for DCI payload.
US PG Pub. 2024/0251401 A1, Xiong et al.: teaches resource allocations for multi-cell DCI scheduling per CC including mapping using both carrier and BWP indices.
US PG Pub. 2023/0284134 A1, Takeda et al.: teaches various power savings solutions associated with switching multi-cell DCI monitoring states and PDSCH/PUSCH scheduling.
US PG Pub. 2023/0345479 A1, Takeda et al.: teaches solutions associated with frequency domain resource allocation for multi-cell DCI scheduling.
US PG Pub. 2022/0408464 A1, MolavianJazi et al.: teaches generating DCI for multi-cell scheduling where DCI format can be used in part to indicate subsets of co-scheduled cell sets.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-6pm 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, Moo Jeong can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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.
/Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights