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 .
This action is in response to the application filed on 10/03/2024.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant et al. (U.S. Pub. 20230262472) in view of Li et al. (U.S. Pub. 20250380228).
Regarding claim 1 Grant disclose, a user equipment (UE) read as “UE 200” for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory read as “memory 215”; and at least one processor read as “processing circuitry 201”; coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to:
receive a synchronization signal block (SSB) configuration comprising a set of one or more parameters para. 39, “The QCL relation parameter associated with FR1 is determined based on a subCarrierSpacingCommon field for FR1 and a ssb-SubcarrierOffset field for FR1, each of which is received [by the UE] in the signaling from the network node”,
wherein a parameter of the set of one or more parameters is associated with a plurality of values para. 12, “the parameter ssb-SubCarrierOffset can take one of 16 different values”.
Grant does not specifically disclose receive a first message comprising at least one identifier, determine a parameter and a value for the parameter based at least in part on the at least one identifier wherein the value corresponds to one of the plurality of values. However, Li teach, receive a first message comprising at least one identifier “If the UE receives a value in the range 0 ... 11, it interprets this as a joint indication of the subcarrier offset and that a CORESETO”, see para. 12.
Li further teach, determine a parameter and a value for the parameter based at least in part on the at least one identifier para. 12, “If the UE receives a value in the range 0 ... 11, it interprets this as a joint indication of the subcarrier offset and that a CORESETO for Type0-Physcial Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) common search space (CSS) set is present. This means that the UE is able to monitor PDCCH in the Type0-PDCCH CSS to receive scheduling of the Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) that carries system information block 1 (SIB1)”, wherein the value corresponds to one of the plurality of values para. 12, “a value in the range 0 ... 11”; and
receive an SSB transmission based at least in part on the determined parameter and the determined value for the determined parameter para. 7, “where a first dimension of a multi-dimensional index indicates a first beam parameter of an SSB of the first set of SSBs”.
Grant and Li are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to signal block configuration parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Li in the system of Grant so the system can accurately mapping a quick identifier message to specific predefined operational configuration. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the network to dynamically modify SSB transmissions.
Regarding claim 2 Grant does not specifically disclose receive a first message comprising at least one identifier, wherein the SSB configuration is received in a radio resource control (RRC) message from a primary cell, and wherein the first message comprises a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) received from the primary cell. However, Li teach, “the UE 115-a may receive the SSB beam information 220 from the network entity 105-b via communication link 215, or from the network entity 105-a, or both, via RRC signaling, MAC-CE signaling”, see para. 113.
Grant and Li are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to signal block configuration parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Li in the system of Grant so the system can provide significant dynamic control-plane signaling advantages for connection speed. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve network efficiency and beam management.
Regarding claim 3 Grant does not specifically disclose, wherein the SSB configuration comprises a group-common SSB configuration, or a cell-wide SSB configuration para. 127, Fig. 4, “The communication fields 400 may be configured to include an indication of multi-dimensional indices indicative of beam information, such as beam information associated with SSBs. The communication fields may include information element 405 that may indicate cell group configuration information (e.g., CellGroupConfig)”, or
a UE-dedicated SSB configuration. The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the second of the alternatives.
Grant and Li are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to signal block configuration parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Li in the system of Grant so the system can provide significant dynamic control-plane signaling advantages for connection speed. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve network efficiency and beam management.
Regarding claim 4 Grant does not specifically disclose, wherein the SSB configuration comprises a group-common SSB configuration However, Li teach, “The communication fields 400 may be configured to include an indication of multi-dimensional indices indicative of beam information, such as beam information associated with SSBs”, see para. 127, Fig. 4.
Li further teach, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to receive a second SSB configuration comprising a UE-dedicated SSB configuration para. 28, “The method may include transmitting an indication of a serving cell configuration information element, the serving cell configuration information element including… a second dimension of the multi-dimensional index indicates a second beam parameter of the SSB, and receiving a message indicating a beam for communications between a UE and the network entity, where the beam is associated with the first set of SSBs or a second set of SSBs”; and
determine whether the at least one identifier corresponds to the group-common SSB configuration or
to the UE-dedicated SSB configuration para. 118, “the multi-dimensional indices described herein, may be identified by the UE 115-a for UE-specifically configured CSI-RSs”. The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the second of the alternatives.
Grant and Li are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to signal block configuration parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Li in the system of Grant so the network is able to provide specific synchronization signal block parameters customized to devices individually. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the managing of available resources and configuration efficiency.
Regarding claim 5 Grant disclose, wherein the first message includes a field that indicates that the at least one identifier corresponds to the group-common SSB configuration para. 31, “The QCL relation parameter associated with FR2 is determined based on a subCarrierSpacingCommon field of a master information block for FR2 received in signaling from a network node” or
to the UE-dedicated SSB configuration. The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the first of the alternatives.
Regarding claim 6 Grant does not specifically disclose, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to: receive downlink control information (DCI) that schedules the first message. However, Li teach, “the UE 115-a may receive, via the network entity 105-a, the network entity 105-b, or both, a message (e.g., RRC, MAC-CE, DCI) indicating the UE 115-a to monitor for a subset of SSBs from the network entity 105-b”, see para. 111.
Li further teach, wherein the DCI comprises an indication that the first message is associated with the group-common SSB configuration para. 113, “the UE 115-a may receive the SSB beam information 220 from the network entity 105-b via communication link 215, or from the network entity 105-a, or both, via RRC signaling, MAC-CE signaling, DCI signaling, etc. In some cases, the UE 115-a may be configured with the SSB beam information 220 via an IE included in RRC (e.g., ServingCellConfigCommon)” or
the UE-dedicated SSB configuration, wherein the at least one identifier is determined to correspond to the group-common SSB configuration or
to the UE-dedicated SSB configuration based at least in part on the received DCI. The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the first of the alternatives.
Grant and Li are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to signal block configuration parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Li in the system of Grant so the network is able to provide specific synchronization signal block parameters customized to devices individually. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the managing of available resources and configuration efficiency.
Regarding claim 8 Grant does not specifically disclose, wherein the first message indicates a serving cell identifier of a secondary cell para. 127, “The communication fields 400 may be configured to include an indication of multi-dimensional indices indicative of beam information, such as beam information associated with SSBs…. a UE (e.g., a UE 115 as described with reference to FIG. 1) or some other receiving device, may receive one or more of communication fields 400 from a MCG, a SCG, or both”, wherein the parameter and the value for the parameter are applicable for the secondary cell read as: “a SCG”, and wherein the serving cell identifier is one of
a physical cell identifier para. 130, “the UE may receive information element 405, which may include cell group configuration information (e.g., CellGroupConfig). In some cases, information element 405 may include at least a first parameter (e.g., spCellConfig)”, a cell index, or a secondary cell index. The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the first of the alternatives.
Regarding claim 9 Grant does not specifically disclose, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to determine the serving cell identifier based at least in part on a position of the at least one identifier in the first message para. 130, “The IE may indicate the subset of SSBs to be monitored such as via a first field of the IE (e.g., ssb-PositionsInBurst) and the IE may additionally indicate the multi-dimensional indices via a second field of the IE (e.g., MultiDimensionIndices)”, and
wherein a first position in the first message corresponds to a first serving cell identifier, and a second position in the first message corresponds to a second serving cell identifier para. 128, “The SSB configuration (e.g., ssb-PositionsInBurst) may include bit-map, may be applied to a frequency range (e.g., FR2), and may indicate the time domain positions of transmitted SSBs… The serving cell configuration common IE (e.g., ServingCellConfigCommon) may be applicable in many situations or examples. For example, the UE may have an RRC connection based on a serving cell in a first frequency range (e.g., ServingCell #0 in FR1). The UE may be configured with another serving cell in a second frequency range (e.g., ServingCell #1 in FR2)”.
Regarding claim 10 the limitations of claim 10 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 11 recites an apparatus corresponding to the device of claim 1 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 12-16 and 18-19 the limitations of claims 12-16 and 18-19, respectively, are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claims 2-6 and 8-9, respectively.
Claim 20 recites a method corresponding to the apparatus of claim 11 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 11.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant et al. (U.S. Pub. 20230262472) in view of Li et al. (U.S. Pub. 20250380228), further in view of Abdelghaffar et al. (U.S. Pub. 20230107490).
Regarding claim 7 Grant does not specifically disclose, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to:
receive downlink control information (DCI) that schedules the first message para. 127, Fig, 4, “Information element 405 may include information element 410 and information element 415 that may further indicate configuration information. In some examples, the communication fields 400 may be configured dynamically, semi-statically, aperiodically via RRC, MAC-CE, DCI, etc.”;
Grant and Li does not specifically disclose determine that the at least one identifier corresponds to the group-common SSB configuration in response to the DCI being associated with a group-common radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) or to the UE-dedicated SSB configuration in response to the DCI being associated with a UE-specific RNTI. However, Abdelghaffar teach, “the UE may receive, from the first TRP and the second TRP, DCI with an RNTI that schedules or carries downlink common signaling. The common signaling may include broadcast information, or group-common control messages”, para. 71. It would be obvious that those “group-common control messages” perfectly would include identification for the group of SSB configuration being transmitted. The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the first of the alternatives.
Grant Li and Abdelghaffar are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to group-common signal block configuration parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of in the system of Grant, Li and Abdelghaffar so the network is able to provide specific scheduling configuration tailored to devices individually. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the data delivery efficiency, ensuring precision for the transmitted data stream.
Regarding claim 17 the limitations of claim 17 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Goyal et al. (U.S. Pub. 20230319747) which disclose(s) paging for highly directional systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL RIVAS whose telephone number is (571)270–5590. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, from 8:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Sujoy K. Kundu, can be reached on (571) 272 - 8586. 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 http://pair–direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/RR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights