DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
This action is in response to preliminary amendments filed on 10/29/2024.
Claims 2, 5-7, 17, 20-22, 24-25, 27-29, 31-32, 35-36 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 3-4, 8-16, 18-19, 23, 26, 30, & 33-34 remain pending. Claim 37 is added. Claims 1, 3-4, 8-11, 15-16, 18-19, 23, 30, 33-34, & 37 have been examined and are rejected. Claims 12-14 & 26 have been examined and are objected to.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/CN2022/133023 filed 11/18/2022 and claims foreign priority to PCT/CN2022/090771 filed 4/29/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/29/2024 and 11/5/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 & 26 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.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8-9, 11, 15-16, 18-19, 23, 30, 33-34, & 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 2021/0258999 A1) in view of Takeda et al. (US 2023/0345479 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Xu teaches:
A method for determining scheduling information performed by a terminal, the method comprising:
receiving downlink control information (DCI) for scheduling a plurality of cells transmitted by a network device; (a UE receives a single DCI message that schedules multiple communications for the UE, wherein the multiple communications may be scheduled for at least two different cells [Xu: 0058]);
determining an associating relationship between a plurality of information fields in the DCI and the plurality of cells; (the single DCI message indicates multiple time domain resource assignments (TDRAs) corresponding to the multiple cells, wherein each of the multiple TDRAs corresponds to a different scheduled communication, and wherein the DCI includes a TDRA field that includes a TDRA index value indicating a row index of a corresponding TDRA table that corresponds to a set of TDRA parameters (e.g. scheduling parameters/information) [Xu: 0048; 0053; Fig. 3], wherein the UE may follow a rule to determine a TDRA table to be used in association with the TDRA index value indicated in the single DCI message [Xu: 0077]);
and determining scheduling information for each of the plurality of cells based on a value of each of the plurality of information fields and the associating relationship; (the base station and the UE may use the identified corresponding TDRA parameters for the scheduled communications [Xu: 0053]);
wherein determining the associating relationship between the plurality of information fields of the same type in the DCI and the plurality of cells comprises: determining the associating relationship according to a predefined rule; (the UE may follow a rule configured by the base station or specified according to a wireless communication standard in order to determine a TDRA table to be used in association with the TDRA index value indicated in the single DCI message [Xu: 0077; Fig. 5]);
wherein the plurality of information fields comprise n information fields, and the plurality of cells comprise n cells; (each TDRA may correspond to a different scheduled communication, and the single DCI message may include one or more TDRA index values that indicate multiple uplink TDRAs corresponding to the multiple cells where the multiple uplink TDRAs may be indicated in the same uplink TDRA table [Xu: 0067; 0071]);
and the predefined rule stipulates that a j-th information field in the n information fields is associated with a j-th cell in the n cells, wherein 1 ≤ j ≤ n; (the specific cell may be a cell, of multiple cells scheduled by the single DCI message, that has a smallest cell identifier, wherein a cell with the lowest cell identifier may be mapped to the first set of TDRA parameters associated with a row index, a cell with the next-lowest cell identifier may be mapped to the second set of TDRA parameters associated with the row index, and so on [Xu: 0079; 0066; 0103]);
wherein the plurality of cells in the associating relationship are in a cell set, and the cell set comprises: a cell set composed of cells that is able to be scheduled by the DCI; (a single DCI message schedules multiple communications for multiple different cells in a set of cells that includes the scheduling cell [Xu: 0058; 0090; 0079]).
However, Xu does not explicitly teach (where underlining indicates the portion of each limitation not taught):
determining an associating relationship between a plurality of information fields of a same type in the DCI and the plurality of cells.
In a similar field of endeavor involving using a single DCI for multi-cell scheduling, Takeda discloses:
determining an associating relationship between a plurality of information fields of a same type in the DCI and the plurality of cells; (a single DCI contains multiple FDRA configuration/information fields, where each FDRA field corresponds to one or more cells for scheduling transmissions of the cell, and where each FDRA field/indication may use the same FDRA type [Takeda: 0003; 0052; 0119-120]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xu in view of Takeda in order to utilize a plurality of information fields of a same type in the DCI in the system of Xu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Xu with Takeda as doing so would ensure that all FDRA fields are able to be decoded using a same common encoding format (RA type) thereby simplifying DCI decoding at the UE.
With regard to Claim 3, Xu-Takeda teaches:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining the cell set based on a predefined rule and/or signaling transmitted by the network device; (the single DCI message may include one or more TDRA index values, which may indicate multiple uplink TDRAs corresponding to the multiple cells (i.e. set of cells) [Xu: 0071], where the TDRA configuration may be included in a configuration message, such as a radio resource control (RRC) message or may be specified according to a wireless communication standard [Xu: 0066]. Takeda teaches receiving a control message scheduling multi-cell (i.e. set of cells) downlink transmissions over a set of carriers, wherein the network entity may transmit or otherwise provide the downlink transmissions over each carrier/cell in the set of carriers/cells based on FDRA configuration/information [Takeda: 0003-04]).
With regard to Claim 4, Xu-Takeda teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein a cell in the cell set comprises at least one of: a scheduling cell; or a scheduled cell; (the specific cell may be a cell via which the single DCI message is received (e.g., a scheduling cell), or may be a cell, of multiple cells scheduled by the single DCI message [Xu: 0079]. Takeda teaches conveying a FDRA configuration/information for each scheduled carrier/cell [Takeda: 0003]).
With regard to Claim 8, Xu-Takeda teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the predefined rule stipulates that an index of the j-th cell is less than an index of a (j+1)-th cell; (a cell with the lowest cell identifier may be mapped to the first set of TDRA parameters associated with a row index, a cell with the next-lowest cell identifier may be mapped to the second set of TDRA parameters associated with the row index, and so on [Xu: 0079; 0066; 0103]).
With regard to Claim 9, Xu teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein the predefined rule stipulates that a center frequency of the j-th cell is less than a center frequency of a (j+1)-th cell; or the predefined rule stipulates that a center frequency of the j-th cell is greater than a center frequency of a (j+1)-th cell.
In a similar field of endeavor involving using a single DCI for multi-cell scheduling, Takeda discloses:
wherein the predefined rule stipulates that a center frequency of the j-th cell is less than a center frequency of a (j+1)-th cell; or the predefined rule stipulates that a center frequency of the j-th cell is greater than a center frequency of a (j+1)-th cell; (carriers may be deterministically arranged by their physical center frequency/bandwidth [Takeda: 0195]. Examiner notes that when the carriers are ordered by center frequency, the result will necessarily be in one of ascending or descending order).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xu in view of Takeda in order to stipulate that a center frequency of the j-th cell is less than a center frequency of a (j+1)-th cell; or stipulate that a center frequency of the j-th cell is greater than a center frequency of a (j+1)-th cell in the system of Xu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Xu with Takeda as doing so would provide a vendor/operator independent ordering criteria by substituting the deterministic ordering by cell identifier found in Xu with another known deterministic order for relating carriers/cells that can be independently derived by the UE and BS nodes.
With regard to Claim 11, Xu-Takeda teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of information fields comprise n information fields, and the plurality of cells comprise a cell where the terminal receives the DCI and n−1 other cells; and the predefined rule stipulates that a first information field in the n information fields is associated with the cell where the terminal receives the DCI, and an i-th information field in second to n-th information fields is associated with an (i−1)-th other cell in the n−1 other cells, wherein 2≤i≤n; (a single TDRA index value of 0 indicates a row index of 1 in the single TDRA table that is configured for a reference cell, wherein the reference cell may be a cell via which the single DCI message is received (e.g., a scheduling cell) [Xu: 0106-07], wherein each set of TDRA parameters associated with a single row index of a single TDRA table corresponds to a different cell of the multiple cells [Xu: 0204]).
With regard to Claim 15, Xu-Takeda teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein determining the associating relationship between the plurality of information fields of the same type in the DCI and the plurality of cells comprises: determining the associating relationship based on an instruction from the network device; (the UE may follow a rule configured by the base station or specified according to a wireless communication standard in order to determine a TDRA table to be used in association with the TDRA index value indicated in the single DCI message [Xu: 0077; Fig. 5]).
With regard to Claim 37, Xu-Takeda teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein a number of the plurality of information fields of the same type in the DCI is the same as a number of cells that can be scheduled by the DCI, and a number of cells actually scheduled by the DCI is less than the number of cells that can be scheduled by the DCI; and the method further comprises: ignoring an information field for an unscheduled cell in the plurality of information fields of the same type; or determining, based on a predefined value, that an information field with the predefined value is not used to indicate scheduling information, wherein a value of an information field for the unscheduled cell in the plurality of information fields of the same type is set to the predefined value by the network device; (when the single TDRA value corresponds to a row index that is greater than a number of rows in a TDRA table configured for a cell, then the UE and/or the base station may refrain from scheduling a communication on that cell [Xu: 0092]).
With regard to Claims 16, 18-19, 23, 30, & 33-34, they appear substantially similar to the limitations recited by claims 1, 3-4, 8-9, & 15 and consequently do not appear to teach or further define over the citations provided for said claims. Accordingly, claims 16, 18-19, 23, 30, & 33-34 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 1, 3-4, 8-9, & 15.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 2021/0258999 A1) in view of Takeda et al. (US 2023/0345479 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Ganesan et al. (US 2025/0247872 A1).
With regard to Claim 10, Xu-Takeda teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein the predefined rule stipulates that an absolute radio frequency channel number (ARFCN) corresponding to a center frequency of the j-th cell is less than an ARFCN corresponding to a center frequency of a (j+1)-th cell; or the predefined rule stipulates that an ARFCN corresponding to a center frequency of the j-th cell is greater than an ARFCN corresponding to a center frequency of a (j+1)-th cell.
In a similar field of endeavor involving utilizing DCI for cross-carrier scheduling, Ganesan discloses:
wherein the predefined rule stipulates that an absolute radio frequency channel number (ARFCN) corresponding to a center frequency of the j-th cell is less than an ARFCN corresponding to a center frequency of a (j+1)-th cell; or the predefined rule stipulates that an ARFCN corresponding to a center frequency of the j-th cell is greater than an ARFCN corresponding to a center frequency of a (j+1)-th cell; (sidelink carrier index/identifiers maybe be provided by cell broadcast signaling that includes ARFCNs, wherein sidelink carriers may be identified in ascending order of the ARFCNs of the sidelink carriers [Ganesan: 0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xu-Takeda in view of Ganesan in order to stipulate that an absolute radio frequency channel number (ARFCN) corresponding to a center frequency of the j-th cell is less than an ARFCN corresponding to a center frequency of a (j+1)-th cell in the system of Xu-Takeda.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Xu-Takeda with Ganesan as doing so would provide a vendor/operator independent ordering criteria by substituting the deterministic ordering by cell identifier found in Xu with another known deterministic order for relating carriers/cells that can be independently derived by the UE and BS nodes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yu et al. (US 2024/0214893 A1) which teaches a cell index list that includes one or more cell indexes such as a physical cell identifier, and one cell index corresponds to one ARFCN [0136].
In the case of amendments, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and support, for ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN J MOREAU whose telephone number is (571) 272-5179. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 - 6:00 ET.
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, Rebecca Song can be reached on 571-270-3667. 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.
/AUSTIN J MOREAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2417
Prosecution Insights