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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/22/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
The abstract is not on a separate page; hence it is objected, and the applicant is reminded to use the above-mentioned guidelines.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US 2022/0070837 A1), hereinafter Yang.
Regarding Claim 1:
Yang teaches A communication apparatus, comprising: ([0128] “The apparatus 700 may be a UE, or a UE may include the apparatus 700.”).
a receiver, which, in operation, receives, from a base station, a configured-resources skipping indication, ([0128] “the apparatus 700 includes a reception component 702 and a transmission component 704”; [0068] “the base station 110 may transmit, and the UE 120 may receive, an indication that the one or more SPS occasions will be skipped.”).
wherein the configured-resources skipping indication indicates that the communication apparatus is allowed to perform one or more of the following actions: skipping a process related to one or more semi-persistent (SPS) downlink resource configurations, and([0064] “an SPS-Config data structure (e.g., as defined in 3GPP specifications and/or another standard), or a similar data structure, that defines the periodic set of SPS occasions.”; [0072] “the UE 120 may refrain from monitoring for data during the one or more SPS occasions that are skipped.”).
processing circuitry, ([0132] “The monitoring component 708 may include one or more antennas, a demodulator, a MIMO detector, a receive processor, a controller/processor, a memory, or a combination thereof”).
which, in operation and in response to the received configured-resources skipping indication, skips the one or more processes during a configured-resources skipping time period. ([0132] “Accordingly, the monitoring component 708 may refrain from monitoring, for signals from the apparatus 706, during the one or more SPS occasions that are skipped.”; [0077] “the indication that the one or more SPS occasions will be skipped may include a quantity of the one or more SPS occasions that will be skipped.”).
Regarding Claim 2: Yang teaches the communication apparatus of claim 1.
Yang further teaches wherein the performed action of skipping the process includes one or more of: skipping to monitor downlink resources for receiving downlink data from the base station according to the one or more SPS downlink resource configurations, ([0072] “the UE 120 may refrain from monitoring for data during the one or more SPS occasions that are skipped.”; [0064] “the base station 110 may transmit within the SPS occasions, and the UE 120 may receive during the SPS occasions, data (e.g., on a PDSCH and/or another downlink channel) without new control information, such as new DCI”).
Regarding Claim 4: Yang teaches the communication apparatus of claim 1.
Yang further teaches wherein the receiver, when in operation, receives the configured-resources skipping indication in a downlink control signal, transmitted by the base station to carry the configured-resources skipping indication, or ([0068] “the base station 110 may transmit, and the UE 120 may receive, an indication that the one or more SPS occasions will be skipped.”; [0068] “In some aspects, the indication may comprise control information, such as DCI.”).
Regarding Claim 5: Yang teaches the communication apparatus of claim 1.
Yang further teaches wherein the communication apparatus is configured with a plurality of SPS downlink resource configurations, and ([0082] “the base station 110 may transmit, and the UE 120 may receive, a plurality of SPS-Config data structures.”).
the processing circuitry, when in operation, determines the one or more SPS downlink resource configurations among the plurality of SPS downlink resource configurations, ([0082] “the base station 110 may indicate that some of the periodic sets are configured for skipping (e.g., as described above) and that others of the periodic sets are not.”; [0065] “the SPS-Config data structure including a new parameter (e.g., as defined in 3GPP specifications and/or another standard) indicating that the periodic set of SPS occasions is configured for skipping.”).
wherein the action of skipping the process is performed for the determined one or more SPS downlink resource configurations ([0072] “the UE 120 may refrain from monitoring for data during the one or more SPS occasions that are skipped.”; [0132] “Accordingly, the monitoring component 708 may refrain from monitoring, for signals from the apparatus 706, during the one or more SPS occasions that are skipped.”).
Regarding Claim 21: Claim 21 is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1, with the corresponding method operations identified in Yang [0090]–[0092]. The receiving and responsive skipping operations are taught in [0091] and [0092], respectively. The SPS downlink alternative and skipping time period are applied as explained for claim 1 ([0064], [0072], [0077], [0133]).
Regarding Claim 22:
Yang teaches A base station comprising: ([0141] “The apparatus 800 may be a base station, or a base station may include the apparatus 800.”).
a transmitter, which in operation, transmits to a communication apparatus, a configured-resources skipping indication, ([0141] “the apparatus 800 includes a reception component 802 and a transmission component 804”; [0145] “the transmission component 804 may transmit, to the apparatus 806, an indication that one or more SPS occasions, within a periodic set of SPS occasions, will be skipped.”).
wherein the configured-resources skipping indication indicates that the communication apparatus is allowed to perform one or more of the following actions: skipping a process related to one or more semi-persistent (SPS) downlink resource configurations, and ([0072] “The base station 110 may refrain from transmitting data within the one or more SPS occasions that are skipped, and the UE 120 may refrain from monitoring for data during the one or more SPS occasions that are skipped.”).
processing circuitry, ([0144] “the transmission component 804 may include one or more antennas, a modulator, a transmit MIMO processor, a transmit processor, a controller/processor, a memory, or a combination thereof”).
which in operation and in response to the transmitted configured-resources skipping indication, skips, during a configured-resources skipping time period, to perform base station processes that correspond to the one or more processes to be skipped by the communication apparatus ([0145] “Accordingly, the transmission component 804 may refrain from transmitting, to the apparatus 806, signals within the one or more SPS occasions that are skipped.”; [0077] “the indication that the one or more SPS occasions will be skipped may include a quantity of the one or more SPS occasions that will be skipped.”).
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, in view of Göktepe et al. (WO 2022/023171 A1), hereinafter Göktepe, and further in view of Zhou et al. (US 2021/0007088 A1), hereinafter Zhou.
Regarding Claim 3: Yang teaches the communication apparatus of claim 1
Yang does not explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry, when in operation, determines when to begin the action of skipping the process: for an SPS-related process, as a point in time after an offset of a number of N SPS downlink resource opportunities provided by the respective SPS downlink resource configuration, and for a CG-related process, as a point in time after an offset of a number of N configured uplink resource opportunities provided by the respective configured uplink resource grant.
Göktepe teaches opportunity selection for implementing wherein the processing circuitry, when in operation, determines when to begin the action of skipping the process: for an SPS-related process, as a point in time after an offset of a number of N SPS downlink resource opportunities provided by the respective SPS downlink resource configuration, and for a CG-related process, as a point in time after an offset of a number of N configured uplink resource opportunities provided by the respective configured uplink resource grant. (p. 14, lines 1-4, Fig. 3: “the second and third upcoming SPS/CG opportunity, following receipt of the parameter at t0, are to be skipped.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Göktepe’s opportunity-selection technique to Yang’s skipping operation to identify which upcoming SPS or CG opportunities are omitted while retaining the other opportunities (Göktepe, p. 14, lines 1-4, Fig. 3).
Yang and Göktepe do not explicitly teach, in that opportunity-offset implementation, as a beginning of a time slot that is subsequent to the time slot during which the configured-resources skipping indication is received by the communication apparatus,
Zhou teaches a future-boundary action-time technique for implementing as a beginning of a time slot that is subsequent to the time slot during which the configured-resources skipping indication is received by the communication apparatus, ([0081] “the absolute time may be after the end of the transmission of the DCI, e.g., the next boundary within a set of periodic time boundaries”; [0081] “the period may be expressed in terms of frames, slots, symbols, etc.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Zhou’s slot-based action time to the apparatus of Yang and Göktepe, beginning the selected skipping operation at the corresponding later slot boundary so that the control message can be decoded before the change takes effect (Zhou, [0081], [0090]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, in view of Lu et al. (US 2020/0045724 A1), hereinafter Lu.
Regarding Claim 6: Yang teaches the communication apparatus of claim 5.
Yang does not explicitly teach wherein the determining of the one or more SPS downlink resource configurations is performed based on a priority threshold, by comparing a priority of each of the plurality of SPS downlink resource configurations against the priority threshold.
Lu teaches a per-configuration priority comparison for implementing wherein the determining of the one or more SPS downlink resource configurations is performed based on a priority threshold, by comparing a priority of each of the plurality of SPS downlink resource configurations against the priority threshold.([0080] “each of the SPS configurations has a specified associated priority.”; [0083] “a comparison (referred to as a first comparison) between an associated priority of the scheduling configuration and a first priority threshold”; [0089] “the terminal device 102 may determine the scheduling priority of D2D transmission associated with each of a plurality of scheduling configurations respectively.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Lu’s priority-threshold comparison to Yang’s apparatus so that the network and apparatus identify the same SPS configurations for skipping (Lu, [0088]-[0089]).
Claims 7, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, in view of Fakoorian et al. (US 2020/0413424 A1), hereinafter Fakoorian.
Regarding Claim 7: Yang teaches the communication apparatus of claim 1.
Yang teaches the uplink-skipping operation used in wherein the action of skipping the process is performed for the determined one or more configured uplink resource grants. ([0087] “the base station 110 may provide an indication (e.g., in DCI, a MAC-CE, a DMRS, and/or another message or signal) that configures the UE 120 to skip one or more uplink occasions in the set of uplink occasions, without having to release and reactive the set of uplink occasions.”).
Yang does not explicitly teach wherein the communication apparatus is configured with a plurality of configured uplink resource grants, and the processing circuitry, when in operation, determines the one or more configured uplink resource grants among the plurality of configured uplink resource grants,
Fakoorian teaches wherein the communication apparatus is configured with a plurality of configured uplink resource grants, and ([0040] “a given UE may be associated with up to sixteen (16) different downlink SPS configurations and up to twelve (12) different Type 2 uplink CG configurations.”). further teaches a configuration-identification technique for implementing the processing circuitry, when in operation, determines the one or more configured uplink resource grants among the plurality of configured uplink resource grants, ([0046] “the UE may map the bit sequence in the single DCI message to one or more CG and/or SPS configurations to be activated and/or released.”; [0047] “the bit sequence may be a codepoint that indicates a particular configuration index”). Applying this activation/release identification to skipping is the proposed modification.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Fakoorian’s multiple-configuration identification to Yang’s uplink-skipping operation so that one control message identifies the grants subject to skipping, reducing separate configuration-control messages (Fakoorian, [0043], [0046]-[0047]).
Regarding Claim 12: Yang teaches the communication apparatus of claim 1.
Yang teaches wherein the communication apparatus is configured with a plurality of SPS downlink resource configurations, and ([0082] “the base station 110 may transmit, and the UE 120 may receive, a plurality of SPS-Config data structures.”). wherein the receiver, when in operation, receives an SPS activation/deactivation indication from the base station, ([0066] “the base station 110 may transmit, and the UE 120 may receive, control information 405 activating the periodic set of SPS occasions.”; [0082] “the base station 110 may transmit, and the UE 120 may receive, an indication of a release of an additional periodic set of SPS occasions.”).
Yang does not explicitly teach the processing circuitry, when in operation, determines two or more SPS downlink resource configurations among the plurality of SPS downlink resource configurations to be activated/deactivated based on information included in the received SPS activation/deactivation indication, and the processing circuitry, when in operation, activates/deactivates the two or more SPS downlink resource configurations based on the received SPS activation/deactivation indication.
Fakoorian teaches the processing circuitry, when in operation, determines two or more SPS downlink resource configurations among the plurality of SPS downlink resource configurations to be activated/deactivated based on information included in the received SPS activation/deactivation indication, and ([0046] “the UE may map the bit sequence in the single DCI message to one or more CG and/or SPS configurations to be activated and/or released.”; [0049] “in a case where the UE has 16 downlink SPS configurations, the UE may be configured with 4 configuration sets that have 4 members each”). the processing circuitry, when in operation, activates/deactivates the two or more SPS downlink resource configurations based on the received SPS activation/deactivation indication. ([0049] “all 4 members of the set that includes the configuration with the index ‘0110’ may be jointly activated or released based at least in part on the single DCI message.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Fakoorian’s joint activation/release signaling to Yang’s apparatus to control multiple SPS configurations with one DCI message, reducing the signaling and processing required for separate messages (Fakoorian, [0043]).
Regarding Claim 14: Claim 14 is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 12, with Fakoorian’s plurality of configured uplink resource grants ([0040]) and received CG activation/release indication ([0045]) used to identify and jointly activate/deactivate two or more configured uplink resource grants ([0046], [0050]–[0051]).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, in view of Lin et al. (US 2020/0396684 A1), hereinafter Lin.
Regarding Claim 9: Yang teaches the communication apparatus of claim 1.
Yang does not explicitly teach wherein the receiver, when in operation, receives a monitoring skipping indication in a downlink control signal from the base station, and the processing circuitry, when in operation, interprets the received monitoring skipping indication as the configured-resources skipping indication and as the monitoring skipping indication.
Lin teaches wherein the receiver, when in operation, receives a monitoring skipping indication in a downlink control signal from the base station, ([0187] “an associated DCI format can indicate to the UE whether or not to skip PDCCH monitoring for next one or more DRX ON duration(s).”). Further teaches an applicability setting for implementing and the processing circuitry, when in operation, interprets the received monitoring skipping indication as the configured-resources skipping indication and as the monitoring skipping indication.([0226] “high layer signaling provided to the UE can dictate whether or not an indication for skipping PDCCH monitoring in next one or more DRX ON duration(s) applies to a SPS PDSCH.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Lin’s affirmative SPS-applicability setting to Yang’s apparatus so that the received indication controls both PDCCH-monitoring skipping and SPS-data-reception skipping, coordinating the two power-saving operations (Lin, [0187], [0226]).
Regarding Claim 10: Yang and Lin teach the communication apparatus of claim 9.
Yang does not explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry, when in operation and in response to the received monitoring skipping indication, indicating that the communication apparatus is allowed to skip monitoring the downlink control channel during a monitoring skipping time period, performs one or more of the following actions: continuing, during the monitoring skipping time period, to monitor the downlink control channel for downlink control information from the base station related to the one or more configured uplink resource grants, or
Lin teaches wherein the processing circuitry, when in operation and in response to the received monitoring skipping indication, indicating that the communication apparatus is allowed to skip monitoring the downlink control channel during a monitoring skipping time period, performs one or more of the following actions: ([0222] “Flowchart 1600 begins at operation 1602 by receiving an indication to skip PDCCH monitoring in a next one or more DRX ON duration(s).”; [0222] “In operation 1604, PDCCH monitoring is skipped during associated DRX ON duration(s) when drx-onDurationTimer is not running.”). continuing, during the monitoring skipping time period, to monitor the downlink control channel for downlink control information from the base station related to the one or more configured uplink resource grants, or ([0216] “Further, the UE can also monitor PDCCH for DCI formats scheduling a retransmission of a transport block in an initial CG-PUSCH transmission.”; [0222] “PDCCH is monitored for DCI formats scheduling retransmissions of a transport block in operation 1608.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Lin’s selective monitoring to Yang’s apparatus to preserve CG-related retransmission scheduling during the power-saving interval (Lin, [0216], [0219], [0222], [0226]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, in view of Zhou et al. (US 2021/0007088 A1), hereinafter Zhou.
Regarding Claim 11: Yang teaches the communication apparatus of claim 1.
Yang teaches wherein an SPS downlink resource configuration configures a set of periodic downlink radio resources usable by the base station to transmit downlink data to the communication apparatus without receiving individual downlink scheduling information via downlink control information from the base station, and ([0064] “the base station 110 may transmit within the SPS occasions, and the UE 120 may receive during the SPS occasions, data (e.g., on a PDSCH and/or another downlink channel) without new control information, such as new DCI”). wherein a configured uplink resource grant configures a set of periodic uplink radio resources usable by the communication apparatus to transmit uplink data to the base station ([0085] “the base station 110 may configure a set of uplink occasions using RRC signaling and/or other signaling.”; [0085] “The set of uplink occasions may provide periodic windows during which the UE 120 may transmit data to the base station 110”).
-Yang does not explicitly teach without a prior scheduling request from the communication apparatus to the base station.
Zhou teaches without a prior scheduling request from the communication apparatus to the base station. ([0005] “As such, the UE may use the CG for autonomous uplink data transmission when the UE has data, without the UE having to transmit a scheduling request and receive an explicit uplink grant on a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) for the specific resource.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Yang’s periodic uplink resources using Zhou’s autonomous configured-grant transmission, avoiding a scheduling-request and individual-grant exchange for each transmission (Zhou, [0005]).
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yang and Fakoorian, and further in view of Lu et al. (US 2020/0045724 A1), hereinafter Lu.
Regarding Claim 13: Yang and Fakoorian teach the communication apparatus of claim 12.
Yang and Fakoorian do not explicitly teach wherein the determining of the two or more SPS downlink resource configurations to be activated/deactivated is performed based on a priority threshold, by comparing a priority of each of the plurality of SPS downlink resource configurations against the priority threshold.
Lu teaches a per-configuration priority comparison for implementing wherein the determining of the two or more SPS downlink resource configurations to be activated/deactivated is performed based on a priority threshold, by comparing a priority of each of the plurality of SPS downlink resource configurations against the priority threshold. ([0080] “each of the SPS configurations has a specified associated priority.”; [0083] “a comparison (referred to as a first comparison) between an associated priority of the scheduling configuration and a first priority threshold”; [0089] “the terminal device 102 may determine the scheduling priority of D2D transmission associated with each of a plurality of scheduling configurations respectively.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Lu’s priority-threshold comparison to the apparatus of Yang and Fakoorian so that the network and apparatus identify the same configurations for joint activation/deactivation (Lu, [0088]-[0089]).
Regarding Claim 15: Claim 15 is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 13, with the configured-uplink-resource-grant limitations identified in the rejection of claim 14 and Lu’s per-configuration priority-threshold comparison ([0080], [0083], [0088]–[0089]) applied to each configured uplink resource grant to determine the grants to be activated/deactivated.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Sakhnini et al. (US 2022/0095320 A1), hereinafter Sakhnini, and further in view of Fakoorian.
Regarding Claim 16: Yang teaches the communication apparatus of claim 1.
Yang teaches wherein the communication apparatus is configured with a plurality of SPS downlink resource configurations, and ([0082] “the base station 110 may transmit, and the UE 120 may receive, a plurality of SPS-Config data structures.”).
Yang does not explicitly teach wherein the receiver, when in operation, receives an SPS switch indication, including a group index, from the base station, wherein the processing circuitry, when in operation, determines a target group of SPS downlink resource configuration based on the group index in the received SPS switch indication, and wherein the processing circuitry, when in operation, switches from a currently-used group SPS downlink resource configurations to the determined target group of SPS downlink resource configuration.
Sakhnini teaches commanded configuration switching underlying wherein the processing circuitry, when in operation, switches from a currently-used group SPS downlink resource configurations to the determined target group of SPS downlink resource configuration. ([0062] “the base station may transmit a DCI to a reduced capability device to indicate for the device to switch between the SPS/CG configurations.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Sakhnini’s configuration switching to Yang’s apparatus to adapt its periodic resources to changes in the downlink traffic pattern (Sakhnini, [0061]-[0062]).
Yang and Sakhnini do not explicitly teach the indexed-group arrangement: wherein the receiver, when in operation, receives an SPS switch indication, including a group index, from the base station, wherein the processing circuitry, when in operation, determines a target group of SPS downlink resource configuration based on the group index in the received SPS switch indication, and
Fakoorian teaches configuration grouping and index signaling for implementing wherein the receiver, when in operation, receives an SPS switch indication, including a group index, from the base station, wherein the processing circuitry, when in operation, determines a target group of SPS downlink resource configuration based on the group index in the received SPS switch indication, and ([0048] “multiple uplink CG configurations and/or multiple downlink SPS configurations that are associated with the UE may be divided into different sets”; [0055] “each configuration set may be associated with an index”; [0055] “the bitmap in the single DCI message may indicate one or more configuration set indices”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Fakoorian’s indexed configuration-set signaling to the apparatus of Yang and Sakhnini so that the indicated index identifies the target SPS group for switching, reducing separate control signaling for its configurations (Fakoorian, [0043], [0048], [0055]).
Regarding Claim 17: Claim 17 is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 16, with the configured-uplink-resource-grant plurality and indexed-group identification taught by Fakoorian ([0040], [0048], [0055]) and the corresponding CG-switching operation taught by Sakhnini ([0062], [0080]). The received group index identifies the target group of configured uplink resource grants, to which the apparatus switches from the currently-used group under the same proposed modification.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, in view of Sakhnini, and further in view of Le et al. (US 2020/0280976 A1), hereinafter Le.
Regarding Claim 18: Yang teaches the communication apparatus of claim 1.
Yang teaches wherein the communication apparatus is configured with a plurality of SPS downlink resource configurations ([0082] “the base station 110 may transmit, and the UE 120 may receive, a plurality of SPS-Config data structures.”).
Yang does not explicitly teach wherein in case the SPS switching counter reaches an SPS switching counter threshold, the processing circuitry switches from the activated group of SPS downlink resource configurations to another target group of SPS downlink resource configurations.
Sakhnini teaches inactivity-triggered switching underlying wherein in case the SPS switching counter reaches an SPS switching counter threshold, the processing circuitry switches from the activated group of SPS downlink resource configurations to another target group of SPS downlink resource configurations,([0065] “If the timer expires, the UE may switch automatically to a different configuration.”; [0080] “the UE 402 may switch from receiving a downlink channel using the first SPS resources to receiving the downlink channel using the second SPS resources if the metric is met.”). The first and second configurations are respective single-configuration groups, consistent with Applicant’s specification [0440], which permits an SPS group index to indicate one or more SPS configurations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Sakhnini’s inactivity-triggered configuration switching to Yang’s apparatus to change the periodic SPS resources when downlink traffic becomes inactive (Sakhnini, [0061], [0065], [0080]).
Yang and Sakhnini do not explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry, when in operation, operates an SPS switching counter, wherein the SPS switching counter is started when a group of SPS downlink resource configurations is activated, together with wherein the SPS switching counter counts: the number of consecutive SPS downlink resource opportunities, provided by the activated group of SPS downlink resource configurations, in which the communication apparatus does not receive downlink data from the base station according to the activated group of SPS downlink resource configurations.
Le teaches consecutive-opportunity detection for implementing wherein the processing circuitry, when in operation, operates an SPS switching counter, wherein the SPS switching counter counts: the number of consecutive SPS downlink resource opportunities, provided by the activated group of SPS downlink resource configurations, in which the communication apparatus does not receive downlink data from the base station according to the activated group of SPS downlink resource configurations. ([0217] “the implicit-reconfiguration event can be triggered by the eNB transmitting a certain number of consecutive empty packets”; [0218] “the certain number of consecutive empty packets (i.e., in downlink transmission opportunities)”; Table 15: “If there has been no downlink data (e.g., only empty packets) after implicitReconfigurationAfter transmission opportunities, the SPS is reconfigured in a preconfigured manner.”). For wherein the SPS switching counter is started when a group of SPS downlink resource configurations is activated, ([0220] “At block 2602, downlink SPS is activated.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Le’s consecutive-opportunity detection to the apparatus of Yangand Sakhnini, initializing the counter when the SPS group is activated and switching at the configured count of consecutive opportunities without downlink data. Initialization at activation confines the count to that activation, excluding observations from a previous activation (Le, [0217]-[0222], Table 15).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, in view of ETSI TS 138 213 V16.7.0 (2021-10), corresponding to 3GPP TS 38.213 version 16.7.0, hereinafter TS 38.213, and further in view of Ma et al. (US 2024/0089959 A1), hereinafter Ma.
Regarding Claim 20: Yang teaches the communication apparatus of claim 1.
Yang does not explicitly teach wherein the receiver, when in operation, receives a search space set, SSS, group switching indication from the base station, wherein the SSS group switching indication indicates to the communication apparatus to switch to a target SSS group, wherein the processing circuitry, when in operation, switches from a currently-used SSS group to the target SSS group, indicated by the SSS group switching indication, wherein the processing circuitry, when in operation, operates an SSS group switching timer for the currently-used SSS group, and at expiry of the SSS group switching timer, the processing circuitry switches from the currently-used SSS group to a target SSS group, and
TS 38.213 teaches wherein the receiver, when in operation, receives a search space set, SSS, group switching indication from the base station, wherein the SSS group switching indication indicates to the communication apparatus to switch to a target SSS group, wherein the processing circuitry, when in operation, switches from a currently-used SSS group to the target SSS group, indicated by the SSS group switching indication, (§10.4, pp. 126-127: “search space set group switching flag field”; “the UE starts monitoring PDCCH according to search space sets with group index 1, and stops monitoring PDCCH according to search space sets with group index 0”). wherein the processing circuitry, when in operation, operates an SSS group switching timer for the currently-used SSS group, and at expiry of the SSS group switching timer, the processing circuitry switches from the currently-used SSS group to a target SSS group, and (§10.4, pp. 126-127: “The UE decrements the timer value by one after each slot”; “the UE sets the timer value to the value provided by searchSpaceSwitchTimer”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply TS 38.213’s search-space-set-group switching procedure to Yang’s apparatus to provide DCI-controlled PDCCH-monitoring changes and a timer-controlled return to the other group (TS 38.213, §10.4, pp. 126-127).
Yang and TS 38.213 do not explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry, when in operation and when switching to the target SSS group based on either of the SSS group switching indication and the SSS group switching timer, performs one or more of switching from an activated configured uplink resource grant to another configured uplink resource grant, based on an association between the target SSS group and the another configured uplink resource grant.
Ma teaches an association for implementing wherein the processing circuitry, when in operation and when switching to the target SSS group based on either of the SSS group switching indication and the SSS group switching timer, performs one or more of switching from an activated configured uplink resource grant to another configured uplink resource grant, based on an association between the target SSS group and the another configured uplink resource grant. ([0066] “PDCCH monitoring behavior includes monitoring PDCCH according to a search space set group (“SSSG”).”; [0066] “the relationship between the PDCCH monitoring behavior and SR group (or set of parameter or CG group or CSI-RS resource group or CSI report group or SRS resource group) is predefined or configured by RRC signaling.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Ma’s association to the apparatus of Yang and TS 38.213 so that either switching trigger selects the grant associated with the target SSS group, keeping grant operation consistent with PDCCH-monitoring behavior (Ma, [0066]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASAN CHEEMA whose telephone number is (571)272-8722. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at (571) 270-0422. 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.
/H.A.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2465 /AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights