DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-6 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits: This application is a 371 of PCT/JP2022/017879 filed 04/14/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/08/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the control unit determines whether or not an unlicensed frequency cell can be configured as the scheduled cell" in lines 8-9. For clarification, it is recommended to change to “the control unit determines whether or not an unlicensed frequency cell is configured as the scheduled cell".
Claims 3 and 5-6 are objected for the same reason as set forth above for claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the control unit determines that the unlicensed frequency cell cannot be configured as the scheduled cell " in lines 2-3. For clarification, it is recommended to change to “wherein the control unit determines that the unlicensed frequency cell is unavailable to be configured as the scheduled cell”.
Claim 4 is also objected to since it is dependent on the objected base independent claim 1 as set forth above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites in lines 1-2, “configured to assume that there are a scheduling cell and a scheduled cell in multi-carrier scheduling by single control information”. It is unclear as to what is meant by “assume”.
The term “assume” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “assume” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 5 and 6 are also rejected for the same reason as set forth above for claim 1.
Claims 2-4 are also rejected since they are dependent on the respective independent claim 1, as set forth above.
For purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the limitation as best understood.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
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.
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 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericsson (Considerations on multi-cc scheduling, R1-153074, 2015-05-29), and further in view of Takahashi et al. (WO 2021064957A1).
As per claim 1, Ericsson disclose A terminal (see Section 2, UE) comprising:
a CPU (see Section 2, UE with a CPU) configured to assume that there are a scheduling cell and a scheduled cell in multi-carrier scheduling by single control information (see section 1 introduction, and section 2, paragraph 1, Multi-carrier scheduling/joint grant); and
a receiver (see Section 2, UE with a receiver) configured to receive the single control information from the scheduling cell, wherein the reception unit receives a plurality of scheduled cells based on the single control information (see page 1, penultimate paragraph: "the multi-cc scheduling/joint grant essentially provide cross-carrier scheduling from one carrier.", where the "one carrier" discloses the scheduling carrier, and the multi-carrier scheduling implies by definition that plurality of scheduled cells are scheduled).
Although Ericsson disclose a receiver configured to receive the single control information from the scheduling cell, wherein the reception unit receives a plurality of scheduled cells based on the single control information. Ericsson also disclose using a carrier in unlicensed spectrum (LAA cell) as the scheduling cell. See page 1, penultimate paragraph: "the second case the scheduling grant is sent from an carrier unlicensed spectrum". It is implicit or at least obvious from Ericsson that the UE uses a previously obtained configuration information indicating that the scheduling information is going to be received in an unlicensed cell.
Ericsson however does not explicitly disclose A terminal comprising: a control unit, a reception unit and the control unit determines whether or not an unlicensed frequency cell can be configured as the scheduled cell.
Takahashi however disclose A terminal (see Fig.15, User Terminal 20) comprising: a control unit (see Fig.2, Control unit 210), a reception unit (see Fig. 2, transmission/reception unit 220, para. 0148) and the control unit determines whether or not an unlicensed frequency cell can be configured as the scheduled cell (see para. 0097, the scheduling cell is set to a license or an unlicensed cell, the unlicensed cell is configured to be set in the scheduling cell / an unlicensed frequency cell is configured as the scheduled 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 provide the functionality of A terminal comprising: a control unit, a reception unit and the control unit determines whether or not an unlicensed frequency cell can be configured as the scheduled cell, as taught by Takahashi, in the system of Ericsson, so as to enable a method capable of appropriately controlling cross-carrier scheduling for a plurality of traffic types, see Takahashi, paragraphs 7-10.
As per claim 2, the combination of Ericsson and Takahashi disclose the of claim 1.
Takahashi further disclose wherein the control unit determines that the unlicensed frequency cell cannot be configured as the scheduled cell (see para. 0094-0101, the unlicensed frequency cell cannot be configured as the scheduled cell and using licensed frequency cell).
As per claim 3, the combination of Ericsson and Takahashi disclose the of claim 1.
Takahashi further disclose wherein the control unit determines that the unlicensed frequency cell can be configured as the scheduled cell in a case where the unlicensed frequency cell satisfies a specific condition (see para. 0094-0101, the unlicensed frequency cell can be configured as the scheduled cell in a case where the unlicensed frequency cell satisfies a delay requirement / a specific condition, whether or not the cell is a cell of a licensed frequency).
As per claim 5 ( a base station), correspond to claim 1 and is rejected the same way as claim 1. Takahashi also disclose A base station (see Fig.14, A base station 10, see para. 0129) comprising: a control unit (see Fig.14, Control Unit 110); and a transmission unit (see Fig.14, transmission/reception unit 120).
As per claim 6, claim 6 is rejected the same as claim 1.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Second Rejection:
Claims 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericsson (Considerations on multi-cc scheduling, R1-153074, 2015-05-29), and further in view of Li et al. (US Pub. No.:20190090267).
As per claim 1, Ericsson disclose A terminal (see Section 2, UE) comprising:
a CPU (see Section 2, UE with a CPU) configured to assume that there are a scheduling cell and a scheduled cell in multi-carrier scheduling by single control information (see section 1 introduction, and section 2, paragraph 1, Multi-carrier scheduling/joint grant); and
a receiver (see Section 2, UE with a receiver) configured to receive the single control information from the scheduling cell, wherein the reception unit receives a plurality of scheduled cells based on the single control information (see page 1, penultimate paragraph: "the multi-cc scheduling/joint grant essentially provide cross-carrier scheduling from one carrier.", where the "one carrier" discloses the scheduling carrier, and the multi-carrier scheduling implies by definition that plurality of scheduled cells are scheduled).
Although Ericsson disclose a receiver configured to receive the single control information from the scheduling cell, wherein the reception unit receives a plurality of scheduled cells based on the single control information. Ericsson also disclose using a carrier in unlicensed spectrum (LAA cell) as the scheduling cell. See page 1, penultimate paragraph: "the second case the scheduling grant is sent from an carrier unlicensed spectrum". It is implicit or at least obvious from Ericsson that the UE uses a previously obtained configuration information indicating that the scheduling information is going to be received in an unlicensed cell.
Ericsson however does not explicitly disclose A terminal comprising: a control unit, a reception unit and the control unit determines whether or not an unlicensed frequency cell can be configured as the scheduled cell.
Li however disclose A terminal (see Fig.8, User equipment 8) comprising: a control unit (see Fig.8, a processor 801), a reception unit (see Fig. 8, transceiver 803) and the control unit determines whether or not an unlicensed frequency cell can be configured as the scheduled cell (see para. 0051-0080, determining that an unlicensed frequency cell is configured as the scheduled 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 provide the functionality of A terminal comprising: a control unit, a reception unit and the control unit determines whether or not an unlicensed frequency cell can be configured as the scheduled cell, as taught by Li, in the system of Ericsson, so as to enable a method for configuring scheduling signaling on an unlicensed carrier, see Li, paragraphs 7-10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takeda et al (US Pub. No.:2021/0321440) – see para. 0066, 0108, “At step 1010, the method 1000 includes receiving a downlink control information (DCI) message having a DCI format, the DCI message scheduling a downlink data communication over a single component carrier or multiple component carriers. The DCI message may be received over a control channel (e.g., PDCCH) of a P Cell, a P(S) Cell, and/or an S Cell. In some instances, the DCI message is utilized for cross-carrier scheduling. For example, a scheduling cell (e.g., P Cell, a P(S) Cell, and/or an S Cell) uses the DCI transmitted over the control channel (e.g., PDCCH) of the scheduling cell to schedule data on a data channel (e.g., PDSCH) of a different cell (e.g., P Cell, a P(S) Cell, and/or an S Cell). In some instances, the DCI message is utilized for multi-carrier scheduling. For example, a single DCI transmitted over the PDCCH of the scheduling cell can be used to schedule data for data transmissions on multiple cells, including the scheduling cell and a different cell. In some instances, the DCI message is utilized for cross-carrier and multi-carrier scheduling. Also, the cross-carrier and/or multi-carrier scheduling of the DCI received at step 1010 can be utilized in the context of DSS. For example, a non-DSS cell can use a single DCI to schedule data on a DSS cell and/or the non-DSS cell. The cross-carrier and/or multi-carrier scheduling of the DCI received at step 1010 can also be utilized in the context of cross-carrier scheduling for carrier aggregation”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAKERAM JANGBAHADUR whose telephone number is (571)272-1335. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7 am - 4 pm.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/LAKERAM JANGBAHADUR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights