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 .
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a(1) as being anticipated by Qualcomm “Enhancement on PUSCH repetition type A” (3GPP TSG WG1 Meeting #108-e R1-2202151).
Regarding claim 15, Qualcomm teaches a method comprising receiving, by a terminal, first control information (1st PDCCH) that schedules a first data signal (1st PDSCH) and receiving second control information (2nd PDCCH) that schedules a second data signal (2nd PDSCH) later than the first control information for the first data signal, at least one of the first data signal and the second data signal being transmitted repeatedly (See section 1.4 where 1st and 2nd PDSCHs are scheduled in slot #3 and #4, respectively and signals can be PUSCH type A repetition); and
determining, by the terminal, whether the scheduling is defined scheduling, based on a first timing for a transmission of the first data signal and a second timing for a transmission of the second data signal (see section 1.4).
Regarding claim 16, Qualcomm teaches a method comprising transmitting, by base station, first control information (1st PDCCH) that schedules a first data signal (1st PDSCH) and receiving second control information (2nd PDCCH) that schedules a second data signal (2nd PDSCH) later than the first control information for the first data signal, at least one of the first data signal and the second data signal being transmitted repeatedly (See section 1.4 where 1st and 2nd PDSCHs are scheduled in slot #3 and #4, respectively and signals can be PUSCH type A repetition); and
determining, by the base station, whether the scheduling is defined scheduling, based on a first timing for a transmission of the first data signal and a second timing for a transmission of the second data signal (see section 1.4).
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.
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 1-4 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qualcomm “Enhancement on PUSCH repetition type A” (3GPP TSG WG1 Meeting #108-e R1-2202151) in view of Salah et al (US 2019/0357197 A1) (hereinafter “Salah”).
Regarding claim 1, Qualcomm teaches a system comprising UE and base station in which the UE receives first control information (1st PDCCH for scheduling 1st PDSCH in S slot) scheduling a first data signal (1st PDSCH in S slot) and receives second control information (2nd PDCCH for scheduling 2nd PDSCH in U slot) scheduling a second data signal (2nd PDSCH in U slot) later than the first control information for the first data signal (see section 1.4 where 1st and 2nd PDSCHs are scheduled in slot #3 and #4, respectively and signals can be PUSCH type A repetition).
The UE further determines whether the scheduling is defined scheduling (in-order scheduling) or not defined scheduling (out-of-order scheduling), based on a first timing for a transmission of the first data signal and a second timing for a transmission of the second data signal (See section 1.4).
Qualcomm does not specifically mention that the UE comprises reception circuitry and control circuitry. However, such features are old and well known in the art. For example, Salah, in a similar field, teaches that UE comprises reception circuitry and control circuitry for controlling out of order scheduling (See figure 2 where the UE determines that the scheduling is not in-order as in “out-of-order” when the timing for 2nd PDSCH is not later than the timing for 1st PDSCH and figure 3 for UE’s circuitry) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply Salah’s teaching of using reception circuitry and control circuitry in Qualcomm’s UE with the motivation being to enhance UE’s performance.
Regarding claim 2, Qualcomm further teaches that the first timing is determined based on an uplink slot (Slot 3) available for repetition transmission of the first data signal.
Regarding claim 3, in Qualcomm’s system the first timing does not depend on an operation in which a transmission of the first data signal is not performed in any of uplink slots available for repetition transmission of the first data signal.
Regarding claim 4, in Qualcomm’s system, the first timing is determined based on an uplink slot actually used (slot 4) for the transmission of the first data signal (for the case that the signal is PUSCH type A repetition).
Regarding claim 5, Qualcomm further teaches that the second timing is determined based on information on a timing from a slot in which the second control information (2nd PDCCH scheduling PUSCH in U slot) is received to a slot in which the second data signal is transmitted (PDSCH U slot).
Regarding claim 6, Qualcomm further teaches that the second timing is determined based on an uplink slot that is available for repetition transmission of the second data signal (See proposal 4).
Regarding claim 7, Qualcomm further teaches that the second timing is determined based on an uplink slot actually used for repetition transmission of the second data signal (in the case where the signals are transmitted in the available assigned slot in a correct sequence, the in-order scheduling is observed. In this case the timings used to determine in-order or out-of-order are the actual assigned slots used for transmission).
Regarding claim 8, Qualcomm does not explicitly define that the scheduling is not the defined scheduling (out-of-order scheduling) when the second timing determined based on information on a timing from a slot in which the second control information is received to a slot in which the second data signal is transmitted is earlier than the first timing determined based on a slot available for repetition transmission of the first data signal. However, Salah teach such feature (see the out of order scheduling where the timing for PDSCH B is earlier than the timing for PDSCH A in figure 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply Salah’s teaching of defining out-of-order scheduling in Qualcomm’s system with the motivation being to enhance the processing of out or order scheduling.
Regarding claims 9-13, Qualcomm does not explicitly teach determining that the scheduling is not the defined scheduling when the second timing determined based on information on a timing from a slot in which the second control information is received to a slot in which the second data signal is transmitted is earlier than the first timing determined based on a slot available or actually used for repetition transmission of the first data signal. However, Salah teach such feature (see the out of order scheduling where the timing for PDSCH B is earlier than the timing for PDSCH A in figure 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply Salah’s teaching of determining out-of-order scheduling in Qualcomm’s system with the motivation being to enhance the processing of out or order scheduling.
Regarding claim 14, Qualcomm teaches a system comprising a base station that
transmits first control information scheduling a first data signal and transmits second control information scheduling a second data signal later than the first control information for the first data signal and the second data signal, at least one of the first data signal and the second data signal being transmitted repeatedly signal (see section 1.4 where 1st and 2nd PDSCHs are scheduled in slot #3 and #4, respectively and signals can be PUSCH type A repetition); and
determines whether the scheduling is defined scheduling, based on a first timing for a reception of the first data signal and a second timing for a reception of the second data signal (See section 1.4).
Qualcomm does not specifically mention that the base station comprises reception circuitry and control circuitry. However, such features are old and well known in the art. For example, Salah, in a similar field, teaches that base station comprises reception circuitry and control circuitry for controlling out of order scheduling (See figure 3 for base station’s circuitry and figure 2 for “out-of-order” scheduling when the timing for 2nd PDSCH is not later than the timing for 1st PDSCH) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply Salah’s teaching of using reception circuitry and control circuitry in Qualcomm’s base station with the motivation being to enhance base station’s performance.
Regarding claims 17 & 18, Qualcomm teaches a system comprising UE and base station in which the UE receives first control information (1st PDCCH for scheduling 1st PDSCH in S slot) scheduling a first data signal (1st PDSCH in S slot) and receives second control information (2nd PDCCH for scheduling 2nd PDSCH in U slot) scheduling a second data signal (2nd PDSCH in U slot) later than the first control information for the first data signal (see section 1.4 where 1st and 2nd PDSCHs are scheduled in slot #3 and #4, respectively and signals can be PUSCH type A repetition).
The UE further determines whether the scheduling is defined scheduling (in-order scheduling) or not defined scheduling (out-of-order scheduling), based on a first timing for a transmission of the first data signal and a second timing for a transmission of the second data signal (See section 1.4).
Qualcomm does not specifically mention that the use of integrated circuit in UE and base station. However, such use is old and well known in the art. For example, Salah, in a similar field, teaches the use of integrated circuit in UE and base station (See par [39-40]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply Salah’s teaching of using ICs in Qualcomm’s UE and base station with the motivation being to enhance the performance of UE’s and the base station.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hosseini et al (US 2020/0053748 A1) teaches out of order scheduling
John Wilson et al (US2020/0154466 A1) teaches timing schedule for out of order scheduling.
Khoshnevisan et al (US 2021,0345382 A1) teaches out of order scheduling for semi-persistent scheduling SPS PDSCH.
Takeda (US 2022/0225356 A1) teaches resolving conflict scheduling.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUY D VU whose telephone number is (571)272-3155. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00a-to 5:00p Mon-Thurs.
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, Deborah Reynolds can be reached at (571)272-0734. 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.
HUY D. VU
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2461
/HUY D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights