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 2-6, 10, 13-15, 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Regarding Claims 2: The instant claim recites “at least one cell that is not actually scheduled”. The term “actually” in instant claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “actually” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This would render the claims indefinite. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets this term as “at least one cell that is not scheduled”.
Regarding claim 3: The dependent claim 3 is rejected as it depends on the claim 2.
Regarding Claims 3: The instant claim recites “wherein the information indicating the at least one cell that is not actually scheduled”. The term “actually” in instant claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “actually” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This would render the claims indefinite. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets this term as “wherein the information indicating the at least one cell that is not scheduled”.
Regarding Claims 4: The instant claim recites “wherein the DCI includes an CMS value that is commonly applied…”. The term “commonly” in instant claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “commonly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This would render the claims indefinite. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets this term as “wherein the DCI includes an CMS value that is applied…”.
Regarding claim 5: The dependent claim 5 is rejected as it depends on the claim 4.
Regarding Claims 6: The instant claim recites “which is used to determine the commonly applied MCS value”. The term “the commonly applied MCS value” in instant claim has never been introduced in this claim or the independent claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This would render the claims indefinite. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets this term as “which is used to determine an applied MCS value”.
Regarding Claims 6: The instant claim recites “which is used to determine the commonly applied MCS value”. The term “commonly” in instant claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “commonly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This would render the claims indefinite. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets this term as “which is used to determine the applied MCS value”.
Regarding Claims 10: The instant claim recites “wherein each of the MCS values is the commonly applied to transport ..”. The term “commonly” in instant claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “commonly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This would render the claims indefinite. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets this term as “wherein each of the MCS values is applied to transport ..”.
Regarding Claims 13: The instant claim recites “at least one cell that is not actually scheduled”. The term “actually” in instant claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “actually” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This would render the claims indefinite. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets this term as “at least one cell that is not scheduled”.
Regarding claim 14: The dependent claim 14 is rejected as it depends on the claim 13.
Regarding Claims 14: The instant claim recites “wherein the information indicating the at least one cell that is not actually scheduled”. The term “actually” in instant claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “actually” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This would render the claims indefinite. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets this term as “wherein the information indicating the at least one cell that is not scheduled”.
Regarding Claims 15: The instant claim recites “wherein the DCI includes an CMS value that is commonly applied…”. The term “commonly” in instant claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “commonly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This would render the claims indefinite. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets this term as “wherein the DCI includes an CMS value that is applied…”.
Regarding Claims 21: The instant claim recites “at least one cell that is not actually scheduled”. The term “actually” in instant claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “actually” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This would render the claims indefinite. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets this term as “at least one cell that is not scheduled”.
Regarding Claims 22: The instant claim recites “wherein the DCI includes an CMS value that is commonly applied…”. The term “commonly” in instant claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “commonly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This would render the claims indefinite. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets this term as “wherein the DCI includes an CMS value that is applied…”.
Regarding Claims 23: The instant claim recites “which is used to determine the commonly applied MCS value”. The term “commonly” in instant claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “commonly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This would render the claims indefinite. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets this term as “which is used to determine the applied MCS value”.
Regarding Claims 23: The instant claim recites “which is used to determine the commonly applied MCS value”. The term “the commonly applied MCS value” in instant claim has never been introduced in this claim or the independent claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This would render the claims indefinite. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets this term as “which is used to determine an applied MCS value”.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 12, 13, 15, 16-17, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable by Zhou et al. (“Zhou”, US 20190075014 A1) hereinafter Zhou, in view of MolavianJazi et al. (“MolavianJazi”, US 20230057605 A1) hereinafter MolavianJazi.
Regarding claim 1, Zhou teaches a method comprising:
performing a random access procedure with a base station ([0125] Fig. 16, random access procedure between UE and base station);
performing a connection establishment procedure for a primary cell with the base station ([0064] A base station may transmit (e.g., to a wireless device) one or more messages (e.g. RRC messages) that may comprise a plurality of configuration parameters for one or more cells. One or more cells may comprise at least one primary cell and at least one secondary cell. An RRC message may be broadcasted or unicasted to the wireless device. Configuration parameters may comprise common parameters and dedicated parameters)(Fig. 9);
performing a connection establishment procedure for at least one secondary cell with the base station ([0064] A base station may transmit (e.g., to a wireless device) one or more messages (e.g. RRC messages) that may comprise a plurality of configuration parameters for one or more cells. One or more cells may comprise at least one primary cell and at least one secondary cell. An RRC message may be broadcasted or unicasted to the wireless device. Configuration parameters may comprise common parameters and dedicated parameters.)(Fig. 9);
receiving downlink control information (DCI) from the base station ([0156] The base station may send, to the wireless device, a DCI comprising the best SRS and/or an SRS resource index)([0161] A base station (e.g., a gNB) may transmit, to a wireless device, a DCI)([0004]); and
receiving data by using resources indicated by the DCI ([0156] The base station may send, to the wireless device, a DCI comprising the best SRS and/or an SRS resource index)([0161] A base station (e.g., a gNB) may transmit, to a wireless device, a DCI)([0207] The control resource set indicator in the DCI may indicate a control resource set of a bandwidth part to which the DCI may be related)([0155] the DCI comprises one or more SRS resource indexes. The wireless device may determine, based on the indication field indicating that the one or more beam information fields comprises one or more beam parameters for the downlink beam failure recovery procedure, that the DCI comprises one or more channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) resource indexes)([0178-0179] DCI comprises resource information)([0204, 0207]),
wherein the DCI includes information indicating modulation and coding scheme (MCS) ([0157] initial modulation and coding scheme (MCS) selection)([0178-0179] DCI formats may comprise one or more of: resource information, such as a carrier indicator (e.g., 0 or 3 bits) and/or a RB allocation; a HARQ process number; an MCS)
Zhou does not explicitly teach apply DCI including MCS to cells, but MolavianJazi teaches
MCS information applied to a plurality of cells including the primary cell and the at least one secondary cell ([Abstract] A method for a user equipment (UE) includes receiving first information indicating a set of cells that includes more than one cell, second information indicating a first search space set that is associated with a DCI format for scheduling on multiple cells)([0083-0086] For a UE (such as the UE 116) that supports multi-cell scheduling, a DCI format received in a PDCCH provides (partially or completely) scheduling information for multiple serving cells, primary cell (PCell) from two scheduling cells such as from the PCell and a special secondary cell (sSCell) in presence of multi-cell scheduling operation.)([0092-0094])([0286] a set of co-scheduled cells can include a primary cell (PCell/PSCell) and one or more SCells.)([0305] DCI format is used for multi-cell scheduling. In example, one or more DCI fields corresponding to cell-specific scheduling parameters, such as HARQ process number (HPN), redundancy version (RV), SRS resource indicator (SRI), TCI state, APs, time domain resource allocation (TDRA), frequency domain resource allocation (FDRA), or MCS, ).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Zhou in view of MolavianJazi in order to apply DCI information including MCS to all cell including primary and secondary cells because it would enhance multi-cell scheduling with reduced signaling overhead (MolavianJazi [0090-0091])
Regarding claim 2, Zhou and MolavianJazi teach the method of claim 1,
Zhou does not explicitly teach, but MolavianJazi teaches
wherein the DCI includes information indicating, among the plurality of the cells, at least one cell that is not actually scheduled ([0056] path 500 is configured to support PDCCH monitoring with multiple DCI format sizes as well as PDCCH monitoring for multi-cell scheduling)([0268] A UE can also be configured a number of cells that do not belong to any of set of co-scheduled cells. For example, the UE can be configured a cell#8 that does not belong to either the first set or the second set of co-scheduled cells in the previous example)([0270] A serving cell can belong only to a single set of co-scheduled cells so that the sets of co-scheduled cells do not include any common cell, or can belong to multiple sets of co-scheduled cells to enable larger scheduling flexibility to a serving gNB. For example, a serving cell can belong to a first set of co-scheduled cells and to a second set of co-scheduled cells, when cells in the first and second sets of co-scheduled cells have a common feature such as a common numerology, duplex configuration,).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Zhou in view of MolavianJazi in order to apply DCI information including MCS to all cell including primary and secondary cells because it would enhance multi-cell scheduling with reduced signaling overhead (MolavianJazi [0090-0091])
Regarding claim 4, Zhou and MolavianJazi teach the method of claim 1,
Zhou does not explicitly teach, but MolavianJazi teaches
wherein the DCI includes an MCS value that is commonly applied to the plurality of the cells ([0305] the UE determines that the DCI format is used for multi-cell scheduling. In example, one or more DCI fields corresponding to cell-specific scheduling parameters, such as HARQ process number (HPN), redundancy version (RV), SRS resource indicator (SRI), TCI state, APs, time domain resource allocation (TDRA), frequency domain resource allocation (FDRA), or MCS, can be set to all-zeros or all-ones values, for the case of multi-cell scheduling).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Zhou in view of MolavianJazi in order to apply DCI information including MCS to all cell including primary and secondary cells because it would enhance multi-cell scheduling with reduced signaling overhead (MolavianJazi [0090-0091])
Regarding claim 7, Zhou and MolavianJazi teach the method of claim 1,
Zhou does not explicitly teach, but MolavianJazi teaches
wherein the DCI includes an MCS value for a reference cell among the plurality of the cells and at least one delta value for at least one remaining cell ([0288] In a second approach, referred to as multi-cell scheduling via multi-cell mapping, a UE can be provided information for multi-cell scheduling of multiple PDSCHs/PDCCHs on multiple respective cells using a multi-cell mapping, wherein a field in a DCI format can be interpreted to provide multiple values for a corresponding scheduling parameter for the multiple co-scheduled cells. Such interpretation can be based on a configured one-to-many mapping/table or based on multiple configured offset values for respective cells that are applied to a reference value indicated by the DCI format. For example, the field can be a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) field wherein a value indicated in the DCI format can be for a PDSCH reception on a first cell and a value for a PDSCH reception on a second cell can be determined from the first value and a configured offset value).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Zhou in view of MolavianJazi in order to apply DCI information including MCS to all cell including primary and secondary cells because it would enhance multi-cell scheduling with reduced signaling overhead (MolavianJazi [0090-0091])
Regarding claim 12, Zhou teaches a method comprising:
performing a random access procedure with a user equipment (UE) ([0125] Fig. 16, random access procedure between UE and base station);
performing a connection establishment procedure for a primary cell of the UE ([0064] A base station may transmit (e.g., to a wireless device) one or more messages (e.g. RRC messages) that may comprise a plurality of configuration parameters for one or more cells. One or more cells may comprise at least one primary cell and at least one secondary cell. An RRC message may be broadcasted or unicasted to the wireless device. Configuration parameters may comprise common parameters and dedicated parameters)(Fig. 9);
performing a connection establishment procedure for at least one secondary cell of the UE ([0064] A base station may transmit (e.g., to a wireless device) one or more messages (e.g. RRC messages) that may comprise a plurality of configuration parameters for one or more cells. One or more cells may comprise at least one primary cell and at least one secondary cell. An RRC message may be broadcasted or unicasted to the wireless device. Configuration parameters may comprise common parameters and dedicated parameters.)(Fig. 9);
transmitting downlink control information (DCI) to the UE ([0156] The base station may send, to the wireless device, a DCI comprising the best SRS and/or an SRS resource index)([0161] A base station (e.g., a gNB) may transmit, to a wireless device, a DCI)([0004]); and
transmitting data by using resources indicated by the DCI ([0156] The base station may send, to the wireless device, a DCI comprising the best SRS and/or an SRS resource index)([0161] A base station (e.g., a gNB) may transmit, to a wireless device, a DCI)([0207] The control resource set indicator in the DCI may indicate a control resource set of a bandwidth part to which the DCI may be related)([0155] the DCI comprises one or more SRS resource indexes. The wireless device may determine, based on the indication field indicating that the one or more beam information fields comprises one or more beam parameters for the downlink beam failure recovery procedure, that the DCI comprises one or more channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) resource indexes)([0178-0179] DCI comprises resource information)([0204, 0207]),
wherein the DCI includes information indicating modulation and coding scheme (MCS) information initial modulation and coding scheme (MCS) selection)([0178-0179] DCI formats may comprise one or more of: resource information, such as a carrier indicator (e.g., 0 or 3 bits) and/or a RB allocation; a HARQ process number; an MCS)
Zhou does not explicitly teach apply DCI including MCS to cells, but MolavianJazi teaches
information applied to a plurality of cells including the primary cell and the at least one secondary cell ([Abstract] A method for a user equipment (UE) includes receiving first information indicating a set of cells that includes more than one cell, second information indicating a first search space set that is associated with a DCI format for scheduling on multiple cells)([0083-0086] For a UE (such as the UE 116) that supports multi-cell scheduling, a DCI format received in a PDCCH provides (partially or completely) scheduling information for multiple serving cells, primary cell (PCell) from two scheduling cells such as from the PCell and a special secondary cell (sSCell) in presence of multi-cell scheduling operation.)([0092-0094])([0286] a set of co-scheduled cells can include a primary cell (PCell/PSCell) and one or more SCells.)([0305] DCI format is used for multi-cell scheduling. In example, one or more DCI fields corresponding to cell-specific scheduling parameters, such as HARQ process number (HPN), redundancy version (RV), SRS resource indicator (SRI), TCI state, APs, time domain resource allocation (TDRA), frequency domain resource allocation (FDRA), or MCS, ).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Zhou in view of MolavianJazi in order to apply DCI information including MCS to all cell including primary and secondary cells because it would enhance multi-cell scheduling with reduced signaling overhead (MolavianJazi [0090-0091])
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 2.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 7.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 2.
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 4.
Claims 6, 8-11 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable by Zhou et al. (“Zhou”, US 20190075014 A1) hereinafter Zhou, and MolavianJazi et al. (“MolavianJazi”, US 20230057605 A1) hereinafter MolavianJazi, in view of Ersbo et al. (“Ersbo”, US 20230275683 A1) hereinafter Ersbo.
Regarding claim 6, Zhou and MolavianJazi teach the method of claim 1,
Zhou and MolavianJazi do not explicitly teach, but Ersbo
transmitting information related to an MCS table, which is used to determine the commonly applied MCS value, through DCI ([abstract] The network node includes processing circuitry configured to indicate, in downlink control information, DCI, a first modulation and coding scheme, MCS, associated with first transport block, TB, indicate, in the DCI, a second MCS associated with a second TB where the first MCS is indicated by a first MCS field size and the second MCS is indicated by a second MCS field size less than the first MCS field size, and communicate with the wireless device based on the first MCS and the second MCS)([0078] network node 16 is configured to indicate (Block S136), in downlink control information (DCI), a first modulation and coding scheme, MCS, associated with first transport block, TB, as described herein. The network node 16 configured to indicate (Block S138), in the DCI, a second MCS associated with a second TB where the first MCS is indicated by a first MCS field size and the second MCS being indicated by a second MCS field size less than the first MCS field size, as described herein. The network node 16 is configured to communicate (Block S140) with the wireless device 22 based on the first MCS and the second MCS)([0086, 0089])., media access control (MAC), control element (CE) or radio resource control (RRC) signaling.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Zhou and MolavianJazi in view of Ersbo in order to multiple MCS value for each TB considering the MCS delta value in the field of MCS as part of DCI because it would be enhancing the MCS field in DCI for scheduling multiple cells, and DCI size is reduced and scheduling capacity increased, and it would reduce the size of the MCS field in the DCI for multi-carrier scheduling, with limited performance impact (Ersbo [0006-0008, 0089]).
Regarding claim 8, Zhou and MolavianJazi teach the method of claim 1,
Zhou and MolavianJazi do not explicitly teach, but Ersbo
wherein the DCI includes delta values for the plurality of the cells respectively ([0089-0106] Fig. 8, Fig. 10, Fig. 12, Figs. 13-14, the network node 16 may configure only the first TB on one carrier to have a full (five bit) MCS field while the other carriers and TB(s) have a smaller delta-MCS field, first MCS to first TB, second MCS to second TB)([0092] the network node 16 may configure the first TB on each carrier to have a full (five bit) MCS field and the second TB to have a smaller (e.g., three bit) delta-MCS field where the full MCS field and the smaller delta-MCS field are part of a single DCI/DCI transmission. The MCS (or MCS index) corresponding to the second TB is derived based on the MCS (or MCS index) for the first TB and the delta-MCS field.), and
wherein each of the delta values indicates a difference between a reference MCS value and an MCS value for each of the plurality of the cells ([0089-0106] Fig. 8, Fig. 10, Fig. 12, Figs. 13-14, the network node 16 may configure only the first TB on one carrier to have a full (five bit) MCS field while the other carriers and TB(s) have a smaller delta-MCS field, first MCS to first TB, second MCS to second TB)([0092] the network node 16 may configure the first TB on each carrier to have a full (five bit) MCS field and the second TB to have a smaller (e.g., three bit) delta-MCS field where the full MCS field and the smaller delta-MCS field are part of a single DCI/DCI transmission. The MCS (or MCS index) corresponding to the second TB is derived based on the MCS (or MCS index) for the first TB and the delta-MCS field.).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Zhou and MolavianJazi in view of Ersbo in order to multiple MCS value for each TB considering the MCS delta value in the field of MCS as part of DCI because it would be enhancing the MCS field in DCI for scheduling multiple cells, and DCI size is reduced and scheduling capacity increased, and it would reduce the size of the MCS field in the DCI for multi-carrier scheduling, with limited performance impact (Ersbo [0006-0008, 0089]).
Regarding claim 9, Zhou, MolavianJazi, and Ersbo teach the method of claim 8,
Zhou and MolavianJazi do not explicitly teach, but Ersbo
wherein the reference MCS value includes an average of MCS values of the plurality of the cells ([0089-0106] Fig. 8, Fig. 10, Fig. 12, Figs. 13-14, the network node 16 may configure only the first TB on one carrier to have a full (five bit) MCS field while the other carriers and TB(s) have a smaller delta-MCS field, first MCS to first TB, second MCS to second TB)([0092] the network node 16 may configure the first TB on each carrier to have a full (five bit) MCS field and the second TB to have a smaller (e.g., three bit) delta-MCS field where the full MCS field and the smaller delta-MCS field are part of a single DCI/DCI transmission. The MCS (or MCS index) corresponding to the second TB is derived based on the MCS (or MCS index) for the first TB and the delta-MCS field.){examiner interprets that having the first MCS value known, then the second and third values of MCS delta can be used to calculate the average of MCS values of the cells}.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Zhou and MolavianJazi in view of Ersbo in order to multiple MCS value for each TB considering the MCS delta value in the field of MCS as part of DCI because it would be enhancing the MCS field in DCI for scheduling multiple cells, and DCI size is reduced and scheduling capacity increased, and it would reduce the size of the MCS field in the DCI for multi-carrier scheduling, with limited performance impact. (Ersbo [0006-0008, 0089]).
Regarding claim 10, Zhou and MolavianJazi teach the method of claim 1,
Zhou and MolavianJazi do not explicitly teach, but Ersbo
wherein the MCS information includes MCS values for the plurality of the cells respectively ([0089-0106] Fig. 8, Fig. 10, Fig. 12, Figs. 13-14, the network node 16 may configure only the first TB on one carrier to have a full (five bit) MCS field while the other carriers and TB(s) have a smaller delta-MCS field, first MCS to first TB, second MCS to second TB), and
wherein each of the MCS values is commonly applied to transport blocks (TBs) included in a corresponding cell ([0089-0106] Fig. 8, Fig. 10, Fig. 12, Figs. 13-14, the network node 16 may configure only the first TB on one carrier to have a full (five bit) MCS field while the other carriers and TB(s) have a smaller delta-MCS field, first MCS to first TB, second MCS to second TB)
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Zhou and MolavianJazi in view of Ersbo in order to multiple MCS value for each TB considering the MCS delta value in the field of MCS as part of DCI because it would be enhancing the MCS field in DCI for scheduling multiple cells, and DCI size is reduced and scheduling capacity increased, and it would reduce the size of the MCS field in the DCI for multi-carrier scheduling, with limited performance impact. (Ersbo [0006-0008, 0089]).
Regarding claim 11, Zhou and MolavianJazi teach the method of claim 1,
Zhou and MolavianJazi do not explicitly teach, but Ersbo
wherein the MCS information includes a reference MCS value and at least one delta value for each of the plurality of the cells ([0089-0106] Fig. 8, Fig. 10, Fig. 12, Figs. 13-14, the network node 16 may configure only the first TB on one carrier to have a full (five bit) MCS field while the other carriers and TB(s) have a smaller delta-MCS field, first MCS to first TB, second MCS to second TB),,
wherein the reference MCS value is applied to one of TBs included in a corresponding cell ([0089-0106] Fig. 8, Fig. 10, Fig. 12, Figs. 13-14, the network node 16 may configure only the first TB on one carrier to have a full (five bit) MCS field while the other carriers and TB(s) have a smaller delta-MCS field, first MCS to first TB, second MCS to second TB), and
wherein the at least one delta value indicates an index difference between an MCS value applied to at least one remaining TB of the TBs included in the corresponding cell and the reference MCS value ([0089-0106] Fig. 8, Fig. 10, Fig. 12, Figs. 13-14, the network node 16 may configure only the first TB on one carrier to have a full (five bit) MCS field while the other carriers and TB(s) have a smaller delta-MCS field, first MCS to first TB, second MCS to second TB)
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Zhou and MolavianJazi in view of Ersbo in order to multiple MCS value for each TB considering the MCS delta value in the field of MCS as part of DCI because it would be enhancing the MCS field in DCI for scheduling multiple cells, and DCI size is reduced and scheduling capacity increased, and it would reduce the size of the MCS field in the DCI for multi-carrier scheduling, with limited performance impact (Ersbo [0006-0008, 0089]).
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and overcome the 112(b) rejections set forth in this office action.
The following is reason for the allowable subject matter in claims 3 and 14.
The prior arts of record (“Zhou”, US 20190075014 A1) and (“MolavianJazi”, US 20230057605 A1) fail to fairly teach or suggest wherein the information indicating the at least one cell that is not actually scheduled includes scrambling the DCI by using a radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) for an alternative MCS table in a situation including a cell to which the RNTI for the alternative MCS table is not allocated.
The following is reason for the allowable subject matter in claim 5.
The prior arts of record (“Zhou”, US 20190075014 A1) and (“MolavianJazi”, US 20230057605 A1) fail to fairly teach or suggest wherein the commonly applied MCS value is determined based on an MCS table including a portion of indexes included in a full MCS table that is used for single-carrier scheduling.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FADI HAJ SAID whose telephone number is (571)272-2833. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, John Follansbee can be reached on 571-272-3964. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FADI HAJ SAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights