Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-11, 13, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Lee (WO2018144641).
As per claim 1, Lee shows the use of the method, comprising: receiving, by a processor of an apparatus, a two-segment downlink control information (DCI) indicating a scheduling of a plurality of cells from a network node of a wireless network, wherein the two-segment DCI comprises a first DCI and a second DCI (e.g., abstract), the first DCI comprises a common bit field and a first part of a designated bit fields corresponding to at least one of the plurality of cells, and the second DCI comprises a second part of the designated bit fields processor (e.g., figures 2-5 and 7-8), a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) reception or a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission with at least one of the plurality of cells based on the two-segment DCI (e.g., paragraphs 67 and 69).
As per claim 2, Lee shows the use of further comprising: receiving, by the processor, a radio resource control (RRC), a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE), a third DCI, or a pre-determined field number from the network node to configure which DCI field to be the common bit field and which DCI fields to be the plurality of designated bit fields (e.g., figure 1).
As per claim 3, Lee shows further comprising: performing, by the processor, a link procedure to link the first DCI with the second DCI as the two-segment DCI for performing the PDSCH reception or the PUSCH transmission with the at least one of the plurality of cells, wherein the first DCI and the second DCI are decoded on a same cell before performing the link procedure, and the link procedure is operated to link the common bit field of the first DCI with one or more of the designated bit fields from the first DCI or from the second DCI as the two- segment DCI (e.g., figures 2-3 and paragraph 27).
As per claim 5, Lee shows the use of receiving, by the processor, a DCI identification (ID) value or a carrier identification field (CIF) of the first DCI or of the second DCI from the network node; and linking, by the processor, the common bit field of the first DCI with one or more of the designated bit fields from the first DCI or from the second DCI in an event that the first DCI and the second DCI have the same DCI ID value or the same CIF (e.g., paragraph 37).
As per claim 7, Lee shows further comprising: determining, by the processor, a reception symbol or a reception period of the first DCI or of the second DCI; and linking, by the processor, the common bit field of the first DCI with one or more of the designated bit fields from the first DCI or from the second DCI in an event that the first DCI and the second DCI are received in the same reception symbol or in the same reception period (e.g., paragraphs 95 and 96).
As per claim 8, Lee shows further comprising: receiving, by the processor, at least one fourth DCI from the network node; and performing, by the processor, the link procedure to link the first DCI with the second DCI or with the at least one fourth DCI for performing the PDSCH reception or the PUSCH transmission with the at least one of the plurality of cells (e.g., figure 1).
As per claim 9, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1. In addition, Lee shows transceivers and processors (e.g., figures 12-15).
As per claims 10, 11, 13 and 15-20, they are rejected for similar reasons as above.
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) 4, 6, 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO2018144641) in view of Kwak (20200374881).
As per claim 4, Lee shows further comprising: receiving, by the processor, a type of the first DCI or the second DCI from the network node; and linking, by the processor, the common bit field of the first DCI with one or more of the designated bit fields from the first DCI or from the second DCI in an event that the types of the first DCI and the second DCI are the same (e.g., figure 2), but does not show that the type is related to scheduling. However, Kwak shows the use of the type related to scheduling (e.g., paragraph 70). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lee with the above limitations of Kwak because it would provide for an improve reliability of the DCI.
As per claim 6, Lee does not specifically show, however Kwak shows further comprising: receiving, by the processor, a scrambling sequence of a demodulation reference signal (DMRS) scrambled physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) carrying the first DCI or the second DCI from the network node; and linking, by the processor, the common bit field of the first DCI with one or more of the designated bit fields from the first DCI or from the second DCI in an event that the first DCI and the second DCI have the same scrambling sequence (e.g., abstract and paragraphs 34, 36 and 127). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lee with the above limitations of Kwak because it would provide for an improve reliability of the DCI.
As per claims 12 and 14, they are rejected for similar reasons as above.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Huang (WO2023207922) is cited to show the use of multiple segmented DCI with use of scrambling.
Laddu (20190312679) is cited to show the use of two-segment DCI.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Follansbee whose telephone number is (571)272-3964. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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.
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 (INUSA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN A FOLLANSBEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights