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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 6, and 15-20 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 5 and 6 recite the limitation "the measurement restriction". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites “the L1-RSRP measurements”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 further recites a base station, a serving cell and a second cell. It is unclear if these are three distinct base stations, or if the “a base station” is actually one of the serving/second cells. The drawings and specification show the UE connected to a serving and a second cell only, no a third base station as well.
Regarding claims 19-20, the claims recite a scheduling restriction that prioritizes “a subset” of either UL transmissions or L1 measurements. It is unclear what is meant by “subset” of measurements or UL transmissions. It is unclear what constitutes the subset. In other words, the specification does not define what a subset of L1-RSRP measurements are or the UL transmissions comprise.
Appropriate correction 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10, 13-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura et al. “Matsumura” US 2026/0155936 in view of 3GPP “Discussion on remaining issues for CSI-RS based L3 measurement” published April 2021 hereinafter “3GPP” (submitted in Applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumura teaches a processor of a user equipment (UE) configured to perform operations comprising:
receiving a time division duplexing (TDD) configuration comprising uplink (UL) transmissions for a serving cell having a first Physical Cell Identity (PCI) (The user terminal communicates with a base station based on a RDD configuration; Paragraph 147. Figure 4a shows a UE and multiple base stations with different PCIs), wherein the UL transmissions are scheduled for a same symbol as a reference signal (RS) for inter-cell Layer 1 reference signal received power (L1-RSRP) measurements transmitted by a second cell having a second PCI different from the first PCI (SSB and L1-RSRP are scheduled for a same symbol; Paragraph 77. Paragraphs 76 and 78 show the transmissions are with respect to difference cells with different PCIs, see also Figure 5 and paragraphs 97-98); and
performing, during the scheduled symbol, one of (i) transmitting a UL signal to the serving cell or (ii) measuring the RS for the second cell, wherein the performing is based on a restriction (the UE performs a measurement with respect to restrictions; Paragraphs 77-78. Paragraphs 99-101 disclose the UE using an existing restriction).
Matsumura does not expressly disclose receiving a dynamic TDD configuration for UL transmissions; however, 3GPP the use of TDD dynamic UL/DL configuration scenarios with respect to L3 measurements; Section 2.1.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Matsumura to include dynamic TDD information as taught by 3GPP.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can avoid interference as taught by 3GPP; Section 2.1.
Regarding claim 2, Matsumura teaches the RS comprises a SSB (Paragraphs 77,78, 98).
Regarding claim 3, Matsumura teaches the restriction is a scheduling restriction comprising prioritizing the L1-RSRP measurement over the UL transmission such that the UE measures the SSB for the second cell in the scheduled symbol (Paragraphs 99-101 teach that when there is overlap, the UE performs L1-RSRP measurements using the existing scheduling restriction. Paragraphs 105-110 show the various restrictions with respect to measurements and/or UL transmissions).
Regarding claim 4, Matsumura teaches the restriction is a measurement restriction which prioritized the UL transmission over the measurements such that the UE transmits the UL signal to the service cell in the scheduled symbol (Paragraphs 99-101 teach that when there is overlap, the UE performs can perform UL transmission using the existing scheduling restriction. Paragraphs 105-110 show the various restrictions with respect to measurements and/or UL transmissions).
Regarding claim 7, Matsumura teaches the RS includes CSI-RS; Paragraph 77.
Regarding claim 8, Matsumura teaches the restriction is a scheduling restriction comprising prioritizing the L1-RSRP measurement over the UL transmission such that the UE measures the CSI-RS for the second cell in the scheduled symbol (Paragraphs 99-101 teach that when there is overlap, the UE performs L1-RSRP measurements using the existing scheduling restriction. Paragraphs 105-110 show the various restrictions with respect to measurements and/or UL transmissions).
Regarding claim 9, Matsumura teaches the restriction is a scheduling restriction comprising prioritizing the aperiodic L1-RSRP measurement over the UL transmission such that the UE measures the CSI-RS for the second cell in the scheduled symbol (Paragraphs 99-101 teach that when there is overlap, the UE performs L1-RSRP measurements using the existing scheduling restriction. Paragraphs 105-110 show the various restrictions with respect to measurements and/or UL transmissions. Thus one can see based on the signaling (which a person of skill in the art realizes can be periodic/aperiodic) dictates what information is prioritized/sent. If there is no measurement information (i.e. no aperiodic CSI-RS) the UL is prioritized).
Regarding claim 10, Matsumura teaches the restriction is a measurement restriction which prioritized the UL transmission over the measurements such that the UE transmits the UL signal to the service cell in the scheduled symbol (Paragraphs 99-101 teach that when there is overlap, the UE performs can perform UL transmission using the existing scheduling restriction. Paragraphs 105-110 show the various restrictions with respect to measurements and/or UL transmissions).
Regarding claim 13, Matsumura teaches the restriction is preconfigured in the UE (Paragraphs 99-101 disclose a UE using existing scheduling restrictions. This is viewed as preconfigured for the UE).
Regarding claim 14, Matsumura teaches the restriction is received from the serving cell (Paragraph 127 teaches a base station configurating the UE which includes scheduling restrictions; thus the base station would send it to the UE).
Regarding claim 15, Matsumura teaches a processor of a base station configured to perform operations comprising:
Configuring a restriction for a UE wherein L1-RSRP measurement configuration is related to the UE receiving a time division duplexing (TDD) configuration comprising uplink (UL) transmissions for a serving cell having a first Physical Cell Identity (PCI) (The user terminal communicates with a base station based on a RDD configuration; Paragraph 147. Figure 4a shows a UE and multiple base stations with different PCIs. The UE performs a measurement with respect to restrictions, thus the restriction has been configured; Paragraphs 77-78), wherein the UL transmissions are scheduled for a same symbol as a reference signal (RS) for inter-cell Layer 1 reference signal received power (L1-RSRP) measurements transmitted by a second cell having a second PCI different from the first PCI (SSB and L1-RSRP are scheduled for a same symbol; Paragraph 77. Paragraphs 76 and 78 show the transmissions are with respect to difference cells with different PCIs, see also Figure 5 and paragraphs 97-98); and
Transmitting the restriction to the UE wherein the restriction is related to a type of RS wherein the type of RS includes a SSB or CSI-RS (Paragraph 127 teaches a base station configurating the UE which includes scheduling restrictions, thus the base station would send it to the UE. Paragraphs 77,78, 98 teach SSB and CSI-RS).
Matsumura does not expressly disclose a dynamic TDD configuration for UL transmissions; however, 3GPP the use of TDD dynamic UL/DL configuration scenarios with respect to L3 measurements; Section 2.1.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Matsumura to include dynamic TDD information as taught by 3GPP.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can avoid interference as taught by 3GPP; Section 2.1.
Regarding claim 17, Matsumura teaches the restriction is a UE level scheduling restriction prioritizing the L1-RSRP measurement over the UL transmission (Paragraphs 99-101 teach that when there is overlap, the UE performs L1-RSRP measurements using the existing scheduling restriction).
Regarding claim 18, Matsumura teaches the restriction is a UE level measurement restriction which prioritizes the UL transmission over the measurements (Paragraphs 99-101 teach that when there is overlap, the UE performs can perform UL transmission using the existing scheduling restriction. Paragraphs 105-110 show the various restrictions with respect to measurements and/or UL transmissions).
Regarding claim 19, Matsumura teaches the restriction is a physical level scheduling restriction prioritizing a subset of L1-RSRP measurements over the UL transmission (Paragraphs 99-101 teach that when there is overlap, the UE performs L1-RSRP measurements using the existing scheduling restriction. As all the measurements are prioritized, this would mean a subset is prioritized as well).
Regarding claim 20, Matsumura teaches the restriction is a UE level measurement restriction which prioritizes the UL transmission over the measurements (Paragraphs 99-101 teach that when there is overlap, the UE performs can perform UL transmission using the existing scheduling restriction. Paragraphs 105-110 show the various restrictions with respect to measurements and/or UL transmissions. As all UL transmission are prioritized, this would mean a subset is as well).
Claim(s) 5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura in view of 3GPP and further in view of Huawei “Discussion on LS on collision of RRM…” hereinafter “Huawei” published October 2018 (submitted in Applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claim 5, Matsumura fails to teach the limitations of claim 5; however, Huawei teaches the measurement restriction comprises prioritizing UL transmissions triggered by Downlink Control Information (DCI) over L1-RSRP measurements such that the UE transmits the UL signal to the serving cell in the scheduled symbol when the UL signal was triggered by DCI and the UE measures the SSB for the second cell in the scheduled symbol when the UL signal is not triggered by DCI (Section 2” Discussion” first paragraph references a UE detecting a DCI and which triggers the UE to transmit in the UL and if there is a collision with SSB, the UE continues to transmit the UL and aborts frequency measurements. Further, if the UE doesn’t detect DCI (i.e. not triggered) it’ll perform the measurements).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include prioritizing the UL transmission based on DCI as taught by Huawei.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that UL transmission can continue to avoid collisions when the transmission and measurement are scheduled for the same resource as taught by Huawei; Section 2.
Regarding claim 11, Matsumura fails to teach the limitations of claim 11; however, Huawei teaches the measurement restriction comprises prioritizing UL transmissions triggered by Downlink Control Information (DCI) over L1-RSRP measurements such that the UE transmits the UL signal to the serving cell in the scheduled symbol when the UL signal was triggered by DCI and the UE measures the CSI-RS for the second cell in the scheduled symbol when the UL signal is not triggered by DCI (Section 2” Discussion” first paragraph references a UE detecting a DCI and which triggers the UE to transmit in the UL and if there is a collision with SSB, the UE continues to transmit the UL and aborts frequency measurements. Further, if the UE doesn’t detect DCI (i.e. not triggered) it’ll perform the measurements).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include prioritizing the UL transmission based on DCI as taught by Huawei.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that UL transmission can continue to avoid collisions when the transmission and measurement are scheduled for the same resource as taught by Huawei; Section 2.
Claim(s) 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura in view of 3GPP and further in view of ZTE “HD-FDD for reduced capability NR devices” hereinafter “ZTE” published August 2021 (submitted in Applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claim 6, Matsumura fails to teach the limitations of claim 6; however, ZTE teaches the measurement restriction comprises prioritizing defined UL transmissions over L1-RSRP measurements such that the UE transmits the UL signal to the serving cell in the scheduled symbol when the UL signal is one of the defined UL transmissions and the UE measures the SSB for the second cell in the scheduled symbol when the UL signal is not one of the defined UL transmissions, wherein the defined UL transmissions comprise a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) for a Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) transmission or a Random Access Channel (RACH) transmission (for scheduled UL transmission overlaps with SSB, if the scheduled UL transmission occurs during random access, the UL transmission is prioritized, otherwise the SSB is prioritized; Proposal 7.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include prioritizing UL transmissions as taught by ZTE.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that when there is potential conflict due to scheduling during the same symbol, the UL transmission is prioritized as taught by ZTE; Proposal 7.
Regarding claim 12, Matsumura fails to teach the limitations of claim 12; however, ZTE teaches the measurement restriction comprises prioritizing defined UL transmissions over L1-RSRP measurements such that the UE transmits the UL signal to the serving cell in the scheduled symbol when the UL signal is one of the defined UL transmissions and the UE measures the SSB for the second cell in the scheduled symbol when the UL signal is not one of the defined UL transmissions, wherein the defined UL transmissions comprise a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) for a Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) transmission or a Random Access Channel (RACH) transmission (for scheduled UL transmission overlaps with SSB, if the scheduled UL transmission occurs during random access, the UL transmission is prioritized, otherwise the SSB is prioritized; Proposal 7.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include prioritizing UL transmissions as taught by ZTE.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that when there is potential conflict due to scheduling during the same symbol, the UL transmission is prioritized as taught by ZTE; Proposal 7.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura in view of 3GPP and further in view of Chen US 2021/0058944.
Regarding claim 16, while Matsumura teaches information elements and MAC-Ce/RRC, the prior art does not expressly disclose a restriction is in the information element which is transmit in the RRC or MAC-CE. Chen teaches the RRC message includes an information element which defines a transmission restriction; Paragraph 29.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include the restriction in an IE and sent via RRC as taught by Chen.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can indicate a transmission restriction with respect to prioritized transmission modes as taught by Chen; Paragraph 29.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON M RENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)-272-3123. 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.
/BRANDON M RENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights