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 .
Priority to Indian patent application IN 2022/21038750, dated 07/06/2022, and PCT application 2023/024832, dated 06/08/2023, is acknowledged. The corresponding priority documents have been received.
The preliminary amendment submitted on 10/16/2024 has been received and considered by the Examiner. Only the specification was amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: it recites “based at least in part the”. Presumably this was intended to read “based at least in part on the ...”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 10-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0159568 A1, hereinafter “Kim”) in view of Hwang et al. (US 2025/0081071 A1, hereinafter “Hwang”).
As to Claims 1 and 10:
Kim describes a UE that can send assistance information uplink to configure power saving during cross carrier aggregation
Specifically, Kim teaches:
A user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: a memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory
Kim describes “programs” that are “stored in the computer-readable storage medium” and “configured to be executable by one or more processors in an electronic device” (Kim, 0233).
Transmit a recommendation associated with a special secondary cell (sSCell) or a primary cell (PCell) used for cross-carrier scheduling
Kim describes a UE sending “UE assistance information” that “may include cross-carrier scheduling information preferred by the UE” such as a “primary cell” (Kim, 0030-0031).
Here, sending “UE assistance information” corresponds to “transmit[ting] a recommendation” because this is the example for the recommendation given in paragraph 0106 of the specification,
a “primary cell” corresponds to “a primary cell (PCell)” from the list of “a special secondary cell (sSCell) or a primary cell (PCell)”, and
the “cross-carrier scheduling information” in the “UE assistance information” corresponds to “cross-carrier scheduling”.
Receive a configuration for the cross-carrier scheduling that is associated with the recommendation
Kim describes a UE subsequently “receiv[ing] cross-carrier scheduling configuration information determined by the base station, based on the UE assistance information” (Kim, 0031).
Kim does not explicitly disclose:
Transmit a recommendation associated with a special secondary cell (sSCell) or a primary cell (PCell) used for cross-carrier scheduling, based at least in part on the sSCell failing
However, Hwang does describe a method for a UE to report radio link failure for a scheduling secondary cell used for cross-carrier aggregation.
Specifically, Hwang teaches:
Transmit a recommendation associated with a special secondary cell (sSCell) or a primary cell (PCell) used for cross-carrier scheduling, based at least in part on the sSCell failing
Hwang describes “reporting the RLF state of the sSCell [scheduling secondary cell]” based on a “cross carrier scheduling (CCS) configuration” (Hwang, 0007).
Here, “the sSCell” corresponds to “a special secondary cell (sSCell)” from the list of “a special secondary cell (sSCell) or a primary cell (PCell) used for cross-carrier scheduling” because the sSCell in Hwang is a secondary cell that helps increase the throughput of the primary cell in a cross-carrier scheduling scenario, which is the definition of a “special secondary cell” given in paragraph 0097 of the specification.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Kim’s method for requesting a replacement for a failed cell link to the scenario Hwang outlines where RLF occurs with a special secondary cell. This would provide the clear advantage of ensuring a UE always has a functional special secondary cell to increase cross-carrier throughput.
Claim 10 describes the same subject matter as Claim 1 in the form of an apparatus claim from the perspective of the network device.
As to Claim 2:
Kim teaches:
The sSCell and the PCell are used to transmit control channel elements (CCEs) as part of the cross-carrier scheduling
Kim teaches that “the basic unit to which the downlink control channel is assigned in 5G is a control channel element (CCE)” (Kim, 0088).
As to Claims 3 and 13:
Kim does not explicitly disclose:
The recommendation is to deactivate the sSCell
However, Hwang does teach:
The recommendation is to deactivate the sSCell
Hwang describes, in response to “detecting an RLF state of the sSCell”, “receiving an RRCReconfiguration message including a configuration for releasing the sSCell and adding a new sSCell” (Hwang, 0007, 0016).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Kim’s method for requesting a replacement for a failed cell link to the scenario Hwang outlines where RLF occurs with a special secondary cell. This would provide the clear advantage of ensuring a UE always has a functional special secondary cell to increase cross-carrier throughput.
Claim 13 describes the same subject matter as Claim 3 in the form of an apparatus claim from the perspective of the network device.
As to Claims 4 and 14:
Kim does not explicitly disclose:
The configuration specifies deactivation of the sSCell, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to stop use of the sSCell based at least in part on the configuration
However, Hwang does teach:
The configuration specifies deactivation of the sSCell, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to stop use of the sSCell based at least in part on the configuration
Hwang describes, in response to “detecting an RLF state of the sSCell”, “receiving an RRCReconfiguration message including a configuration for releasing the sSCell and adding a new sSCell” (Hwang, 0007, 0016).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Kim’s method for requesting a replacement for a failed cell link to the scenario Hwang outlines where RLF occurs with a special secondary cell. This would provide the clear advantage of ensuring a UE always has a functional special secondary cell to increase cross-carrier throughput.
Claim 14 is a broader version of Claim 4 in the form of an apparatus claim from the perspective of the network device.
As to Claims 5 and 15:
Kim does not explicitly disclose:
The recommendation indicates a new sSCell for cross-carrier scheduling with the PCell
However, Hwang does teach:
The recommendation indicates a new sSCell for cross-carrier scheduling with the PCell
Hwang describes, in response to “detecting an RLF state of the sSCell”, “receiving an RRCReconfiguration message including a configuration for releasing the sSCell and adding a new sSCell” (Hwang, 0007, 0016).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Kim’s method for requesting a replacement for a failed cell link to the scenario Hwang outlines where RLF occurs with a special secondary cell. This would provide the clear advantage of ensuring a UE always has a functional special secondary cell to increase cross-carrier throughput.
Claim 15 describes the same subject matter as Claim 5 in the form of an apparatus claim from the perspective of the network device.
As to Claim 6 and 16:
Kim does not explicitly disclose:The configuration specifies activation of the new sSCell, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to use the new sSCell based at least in part on the configuration
However, Hwang does teach:The configuration specifies activation of the new sSCell, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to use the new sSCell based at least in part on the configuration
Hwang describes, in response to “detecting an RLF state of the sSCell”, “receiving an RRCReconfiguration message including a configuration for releasing the sSCell and adding a new sSCell” (Hwang, 0007, 0016).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Kim’s method for requesting a replacement for a failed cell link to the scenario Hwang outlines where RLF occurs with a special secondary cell. This would provide the clear advantage of ensuring a UE always has a functional special secondary cell to increase cross-carrier throughput.
Claim 16 is a broader version of Claim 6 in the form of an apparatus claim from the perspective of the network device.
As to Claim 7:
Kim does not explicitly disclose:
The configuration specifies activation of the new sSCell, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to switch from the sSCell to the new sSCell based at least in part on the configuration
However, Hwang does teach:
The configuration specifies activation of the new sSCell, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to switch from the sSCell to the new sSCell based at least in part on the configuration
Hwang describes, in response to “detecting an RLF state of the sSCell”, “receiving an RRCReconfiguration message including a configuration for releasing the sSCell and adding a new sSCell” (Hwang, 0007, 0016).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Kim’s method for requesting a replacement for a failed cell link to the scenario Hwang outlines where RLF occurs with a special secondary cell. This would provide the clear advantage of ensuring a UE always has a functional special secondary cell to increase cross-carrier throughput.
As to Claim 11:
Kim teaches:
The one or more processors are configured to generate the configuration based at least in part on the recommendation
Kim describes a UE “receiving cross-carrier scheduling configuration information determined by the base station, based on the UE assistance information” (Kim, 0031).
As to Claim 12:
Kim does not explicitly disclose:
The one or more processors, to generate the configuration, are configured to generate the configuration further based on channel conditions or traffic conditions of the sSCell or the PCell
However, Hwang does teach:
The one or more processors, to generate the configuration, are configured to generate the configuration further based on channel conditions or traffic conditions of the sSCell or the PCell
Hwang describes a UE “receiving an RRCReconfiguration message” after “reporting the RLF state” (Hwang, 0014-0016).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Kim’s method for requesting a replacement for a failed cell link to the scenario Hwang outlines where RLF occurs with a special secondary cell. This would provide the clear advantage of ensuring a UE always has a functional special secondary cell to increase cross-carrier throughput.
As to Claim 17:
Kim teaches:
The recommendation indicates a new PCell that is to replace or supplement the PCell
Kim teaches that the “UE assistance information may configure at least one of a primary cell” (Kim, 0031).
Here, the “primary cell” is “new” because the UE is already connected to a primary cell which receives the UE assistance information.
As to Claim 18:
Kim teaches:
The configuration specifies that the new PCell is to replace or supplement the PCell
Kim teaches that the “UE assistance information may configure at least one of a primary cell” (Kim, 0031).
Here, the “primary cell” is “new” because the UE is already connected to a primary cell which receives the UE assistance information.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2022/0159568 A1) in view of Hwang (US 2025/0081071 A1) and further in view of Marupaduga et al. (US 11,026,131 B1, hereinafter “Marupaduga”).
As to Claim 8:
Kim teaches:
The recommendation indicates a new PCell
Kim describes a UE sending “UE assistance information” that “may include cross-carrier scheduling information preferred by the UE” such as a “primary cell” (Kim, 0030-0031).
Kim does not explicitly disclose
The sSCell
However, Hwang does teach:
The sSCell
Hwang describes “reporting the RLF state of the sSCell [scheduling secondary cell]” based on a “cross carrier scheduling (CCS) configuration” (Hwang, 0007).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Kim’s method for requesting a replacement for a failed cell link to the scenario Hwang outlines where RLF occurs with a special secondary cell. This would provide the clear advantage of ensuring a UE always has a functional special secondary cell to increase cross-carrier throughput.
The combination of Kim and Hwang also does not explicitly disclose:
A new PCell that is to replace or supplement the PCell based at least in part the [sic] ... SCell having a higher throughput or reliability than the PCell
However, Marupaduga does describe a method for a UE to swap its PCell with a supporting SCell when the link with the PCell has high interference.
Specifically, Marupaduga teaches:
A new PCell that is to replace or supplement the PCell based at least in part the [sic] ... SCell having a higher throughput or reliability than the PCell
Marupaduga teaches that “[i]f and when the access node therby determines that the extent of IMD on the uplink channel of the UE’s PCell is threshold high, the access node could then responsively swap the UE’s PCell with an SCell of the UE’s connection, in an effort to improve the quality of the UE’s uplink voice communication” (Marupaduga, col. 8, lines 66-67; col. 9, lines 1-4).
Here, “swap the UE’s PCell with an SCell” corresponds to “a new PCell that is to replace ... the PCell”, and
“if ... IMD on the uplink channel of the UE’s PCell is threshold high” maps to “based at least in part the [sic] ... SCell having a higher ... reliability than the PCell”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Marupaduga’s practice of switching the PCell with the SCell when the latter has better reliability into Kim’s method for a UE to recommend changing carrier aggregation parameters. If swapping the PCell and the SCell would improve link performance, then incorporating this suggestion into Kim’s UE assistance information offers a clear advantage.
As to Claim 9:
Kim teaches:
The configuration specifies the new PCell, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to use the new PCell for the cross-carrier scheduling based at least in part on the configuration
Kim describes a UE “receiving cross-carrier scheduling configuration information determined by the base station, based on the UE assistance information”, clarifying that “the cross-carrier scheduling configuration information may configure ... a primary cell” (Kim, 0031).
Claim(s) 19, 22-25, and 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2022/0159568 A1) in view of Hwang (US 2025/0081071 A1) and further in view of Lin et al. (US 2020/0029315 A1, hereinafter “Lin”).
As to Claims 19 and 25:
Kim describes a UE that can send assistance information uplink to configure power saving during cross carrier aggregation
Specifically, KIm teaches:
A user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: a memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory
Kim describes “programs” that are “stored in the computer-readable storage medium” and “configured to be executable by one or more processors in an electronic device” (Kim, 0233).
Transmit a recommendation ... that indicates ... a primary cell (PCell) for cross-carrier scheduling
Kim describes a UE sending “UE assistance information” that “may include cross-carrier scheduling information preferred by the UE” such as a “primary cell” (Kim, 0030-0031).
Here, sending “UE assistance information” corresponds to “transmit[ting] a recommendation” because this is the example for the recommendation given in paragraph 0106 of the specification,
a “primary cell” corresponds to “a primary cell (PCell)”, and
the “cross-carrier scheduling information” in the “UE assistance information” corresponds to “cross-carrier scheduling”.
Receive a configuration for the cross-carrier scheduling that is associated with the recommendation
Kim describes a UE subsequently “receiv[ing] cross-carrier scheduling configuration information determined by the base station, based on the UE assistance information” (Kim, 0031).
Kim does not explicitly disclose:
A special secondary cell (sSCell)
However, Hwang does teach:
A special secondary cell (sSCell)
Hwang describes “reporting the RLF state of the sSCell [scheduling secondary cell]” based on a “cross carrier scheduling (CCS) configuration” (Hwang, 0007).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Kim’s method for requesting a replacement for a failed cell link to the scenario Hwang outlines where RLF occurs with a special secondary cell. This would provide the clear advantage of ensuring a UE always has a functional special secondary cell to increase cross-carrier throughput.
The combination of Kim and Hwang also does not explicitly disclose:
Transmit a recommendation of a value that indicates how control channel elements (CCEs) are distributed ... for cross-carrier scheduling
However, Lin does describe a method for sending UE assistance information uplink to adjust cross-carrier aggregation levels.
Specifically, Lin teaches:
Transmit a recommendation of a value that indicates how control channel elements (CCEs) are distributed ... for cross-carrier scheduling
Lin describes a UE sending a “UE assistance information report to the gNB” so that “[t]he gNB can confirm or adjust the set of CCE ALs [aggregation levels] for the UE” (Lin, 0222).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the aggregation level adjustment described in Lin a potential adjustable parameter in the similar UE assistance information described in Kim. As noted in Lin, adjusting aggregation levels can optimize link quality (see Lin, 0222), offering a clear advantage motivating combination.
Claim 25 encompasses the same subject matter as Claim 19 in the form of an apparatus claim representing the network device.
As to Claims 22 and 28:
Kim teaches:
The PCell
Kim describes a UE sending “UE assistance information” that “may include cross-carrier scheduling information preferred by the UE” such as a “primary cell” (Kim, 0030-0031).
Kim does not explicitly disclose
The sSCell
However, Hwang does teach:
The sSCell
Hwang describes “reporting the RLF state of the sSCell [scheduling secondary cell]” based on a “cross carrier scheduling (CCS) configuration” (Hwang, 0007).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Kim’s method for requesting a replacement for a failed cell link to the scenario Hwang outlines where RLF occurs with a special secondary cell. This would provide the clear advantage of ensuring a UE always has a functional special secondary cell to increase cross-carrier throughput.
The combination of Kim and Hwang also does not explicitly disclose:
The value is based at least in part on ... channel conditions
However, Lin does teach:
The value is based at least in part on ... channel conditions
Lin teaches that “UE can measure and determine minimum Control Channel Element (CCE) aggregation level (AL) such that the UE can detect a predetermined or any DCI format with a target Block Error Rate (BLER)” (Lin, 0228).
Here, “Control Channel Element (CCE) aggregation level (AL)” corresponds to “the value”,
“determine ... such that” corresponds to “based at least in part on”, and
“BLER” maps to “channel conditions”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the aggregation level adjustment described in Lin a potential adjustable parameter in the similar UE assistance information described in Kim. As noted in Lin, adjusting aggregation levels can optimize link quality (see Lin, 0222), offering a clear advantage motivating combination.
Claim 28 encompasses the same subject matter as Claim 22 in the form of an apparatus claim from the perspective of the network device that additionally requires that:
As to Claims 23 and 29:
Kim teaches:
The PCell
Kim describes a UE sending “UE assistance information” that “may include cross-carrier scheduling information preferred by the UE” such as a “primary cell” (Kim, 0030-0031).
KIm does not explicitly disclose
The sSCell
However, Hwang does teach:
The sSCell
Hwang describes “reporting the RLF state of the sSCell [scheduling secondary cell]” based on a “cross carrier scheduling (CCS) configuration” (Hwang, 0007).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Kim’s method for requesting a replacement for a failed cell link to the scenario Hwang outlines where RLF occurs with a special secondary cell. This would provide the clear advantage of ensuring a UE always has a functional special secondary cell to increase cross-carrier throughput.
The combination of Kim and Hwang does not explicitly disclose:
The value is based at least in part on ... a block error rate (BLER) ... satisfying a BLER threshold
However, Lin does teach:
The value is based at least in part on ... a block error rate (BLER) ... satisfying a BLER threshold
Lin teaches that “UE can measure and determine minimum Control Channel Element (CCE) aggregation level (AL) such that the UE can detect a predetermined or any DCI format with a target Block Error Rate (BLER)” (Lin, 0228).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the aggregation level adjustment described in Lin a potential adjustable parameter in the similar UE assistance information described in Kim. As noted in Lin, adjusting aggregation levels can optimize link quality (see Lin, 0222), offering a clear advantage motivating combination.
Claim 29 encompasses the same subject matter as Claim 23 in the form of an apparatus claim from the perspective of the network device that additionally requires that:
As to Claims 24 and 30:
Kim teaches:
The PCell
Kim describes a UE sending “UE assistance information” that “may include cross-carrier scheduling information preferred by the UE” such as a “primary cell” (Kim, 0030-0031).
KIm does not explicitly disclose
The sSCell
However, Hwang does teach:
The sSCell
Hwang describes “reporting the RLF state of the sSCell [scheduling secondary cell]” based on a “cross carrier scheduling (CCS) configuration” (Hwang, 0007).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Kim’s method for requesting a replacement for a failed cell link to the scenario Hwang outlines where RLF occurs with a special secondary cell. This would provide the clear advantage of ensuring a UE always has a functional special secondary cell to increase cross-carrier throughput.
The combination of Kim and Hwang does not explicitly disclose:
The value is based at least in part on ... traffic conditions
However, Lin does teach:
The value is based at least in part on ... traffic conditions
Lin teaches that “UE can measure and determine minimum Control Channel Element (CCE) aggregation level (AL) such that the UE can detect a predetermined or any DCI format with a target Block Error Rate (BLER)” (Lin, 0228).
Here, “a target Block Error Rate (BLER)” corresponds to “traffic conditions”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the aggregation level adjustment described in Lin a potential adjustable parameter in the similar UE assistance information described in Kim. As noted in Lin, adjusting aggregation levels can optimize link quality (see Lin, 0222), offering a clear advantage motivating combination.
Claim 30 encompasses the same subject matter as Claim 24 in the form of an apparatus claim from the perspective of the network device that additionally requires that:
Claim(s) 20-21 and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2022/0159568 A1) in view of Hwang (US 2025/0081071 A1) and Lin (US 2020/0029315 A1) and further in view of Nimbalker et al. (US 2023/0353321 A1).
As to Claims 20 and 26:
Kim does not explicitly disclose:
The sSCell
However, Hwang does teach:
The sSCell
Hwang describes “reporting the RLF state of the sSCell [scheduling secondary cell]” based on a “cross carrier scheduling (CCS) configuration” (Hwang, 0007).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Kim’s method for requesting a replacement for a failed cell link to the scenario Hwang outlines where RLF occurs with a special secondary cell. This would provide the clear advantage of ensuring a UE always has a functional special secondary cell to increase cross-carrier throughput.
The combination of Kim, Hwang, and Lin also does not explicitly disclose:
The value indicates more CCEs for the ... SCell than for the PCell
However, Nimbalker does describe scheduling specific fractions of CCEs for a primary cell and secondary cells.
Specifically, Nimbalker teaches:
The value indicates more CCEs for the ... SCell than for the PCell
Nimbalker describes parameters for CCE allocation: a2, which is the proportion of CCEs allocated to the primary cell, and b2, which is the proportion of CCEs allocated to the secondary cell. Nimbalker gives an example where “a2 = 0.25”, which means the majority of CCEs are allocated to the secondary cell(s) (Nimbalker, 0192).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Lin’s method for configuring CCE distribution into Kim’s method for adjusting cross-carrier distribution to achieve the scenario outlined in Nimbalker where the majority of CCEs are allocated to a special secondary cell. This scheduling can “improv[e] system performance via flexible BD/CCE allocation for the two cells” (Nimbalker, 0018), a clear advantage motivating this combination.
Claim 26 encompasses the same subject matter as Claim 20 in the form of an apparatus claim from the perspective of the network device that additionally requires that:
The configuration includes the value
Nimbalker teaches that, when configuring “CCE limits”, the “weights may be configured by higher layers” (Nimbalker, 0182, 0185).
As to Claims 21 and 27:
Kim does not explicitly disclose:
The sSCell
However, Hwang does teach:
The sSCell
Hwang describes “reporting the RLF state of the sSCell [scheduling secondary cell]” based on a “cross carrier scheduling (CCS) configuration” (Hwang, 0007).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Kim’s method for requesting a replacement for a failed cell link to the scenario Hwang outlines where RLF occurs with a special secondary cell. This would provide the clear advantage of ensuring a UE always has a functional special secondary cell to increase cross-carrier throughput.
The combination of Kim, Hwang, and Lin also does not explicitly disclose:
The value indicates an equal amount of or more CCEs for the ... PCell than for the sSCell
However, Nimbalker does describe scheduling specific fractions of CCEs for a primary cell and secondary cells.
Specifically, Nimbalker teaches:
The value indicates an equal amount of or more CCEs for the ... PCell than for the sSCell
Nimbalker describes parameters for CCE allocation: a2, which is the proportion of CCEs allocated to the primary cell, and b2, which is the proportion of CCEs allocated to the secondary cell. Nimbalker gives an example where “a2 = 0.5”, which means equal numbers of CCEs are allocated to the primary cell and the secondary cell(s) (Nimbalker, 0192).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Lin’s method for configuring CCE distribution into Kim’s method for adjusting cross-carrier distribution to achieve the scenario outlined in Nimbalker where the majority of CCEs are allocated to a special secondary cell. This scheduling can “improv[e] system performance via flexible BD/CCE allocation for the two cells” (Nimbalker, 0018), a clear advantage motivating this combination.
Claim 27 encompasses the same subject matter as Claim 21 in the form of an apparatus claim from the perspective of the network device that additionally requires that:
The configuration includes the value
Nimbalker teaches that, when configuring “CCE limits”, the “weights may be configured by higher layers” (Nimbalker, 0182, 0185).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yi et al. (US 2023/0023041) describes a method for a UE to recommend switching its primary cell used for cross-carrier aggregation. Also, non-patent literature “Discussion on Scell scheduling P(S)cell”, cited in the IDS dated 10/16/2024, relates to the present application as well.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin Peter Welte whose telephone number is (703)756-5965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 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, Chirag G Shah can be reached at (571) 272-3144. 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.
BENJAMIN PETER WELTE
Examiner
Art Unit 2477
/CHIRAG G SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights