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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending
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 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As per claim 12, it is not clear what is meant by “wherein the distance K is a positive integer in symbol” means. For the purpose of this office action the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
“wherein the distance K is a positive integer number of [[in]] symbols”.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on its dependency to claim 12.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-7, 10-14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sun et al. (US 2018/0279274)(“Sun”).
As per claim 1, Sun teaches a wireless communication method, comprising:
receiving, by a communication device from a network device, a control signaling (i.e., DCI) including one or more parameters (i.e., “specified field(s)”) of a semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) configuration for a scheduling of one or more time and frequency resources (see abstract, ¶0014-¶0015, and Fig. 5, also see for example ¶0032, i.e., “decoding PDSCH or transmitting PUSCH on the time-frequency resource indicated by PDCCH”); and
performing, by the communication device, an operation based on the SPS configuration (e.g., receiving or transmitting new data, see ¶0104, read as an operation), wherein the operation is performed according to an application delay (i.e., “pre-defined fixed value”, see Fig 5).
As per claim 5, Sun further teaches wherein the control signaling includes Downlink Control Information (DCI) signaling (see abstract).
As per claim 6, Sun further teaches wherein the one or more parameters of the SPS configuration in the DCI signaling includes one or more types of indications that includes:
an activation indication for the one or more time and frequency resources… (i.e., time and frequency domains, see ¶0014, see also ¶0032, i.e., “decoding PDSCH or transmitting PUSCH on the time-frequency resource indicated by PDCCH”).
As per claim 7, Sun further teaches wherein the one or more parameters of the SPS configuration in DCI signaling includes an activation indication that indicates that at least one time and frequency resource is used for transmitting or receiving data (i.e., time and frequency domains, see ¶0014, also see ¶0032, “decoding [i.e., “receiving”] PDSCH or transmitting PUSCH on the time-frequency resource indicated by PDCCH”).
As per claim 10, Sun further teaches wherein the operation based on SPS configuration includes any one of: transmitting in the one or more time and frequency resources, receiving in the one or more time and frequency resources (see ¶0032, “decoding [i.e., “receiving”] PDSCH or transmitting PUSCH on the time-frequency resource indicated by PDCCH”).
As per claim 11, Sun further teaches wherein the application delay is determined by a distance between a starting time point (e.g., “the ending subframe of PDCCH”, see Fig. 5, and ¶0113) and an ending time point (e.g., after 8 ms or 4 ms, see ¶0113).
As per claim 12, Sun further teaches wherein a distance K between the starting time point and the ending time point is determined or indicated by a subcarrier spacing (see ¶0113, which anticipates the time unit of the scheduling delay being in terms of symbol/slot/subframe, which is impliedly based on subcarrier spacing), the distance K is a positive integer in symbol (see ¶0113, i.e., in terms of “symbol(s)”, which is impliedly a positive integer).
As per claim 13, Sun further teaches wherein in the distance K, another control signaling is not transmitted in the distance K (e.g., “the ending subframe of PDCCH”, see Fig. 5, and ¶0113, which implies no other PDCCH subframe(s), i.e., control signaling).
Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1 and 5 since they recite substantially identical subject matter. Any differences between the claims do not result in patentably distinct claims and all of the limitations are taught by the above cited art.
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.
Claims 2, 8, 9, 15 are 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in further in view of Lu et al. (US 2019/0230692)(“Lu”).
As per claim 2, Sun further teaches wherein the SPS configuration includes: one or more time and frequency resources (i.e., time domain, see ¶0014, and frequency domain resources, see ¶0014), … a length information of a duration (i.e., “occupied time duration”, see ¶0014).
As per claim 2, Sun does not expressly teach the SPS configuration further including, one or more time and frequency groups, a valid or invalid indication, and an offset information.
Nevertheless, in the same art of SPS configuration, Lu teaches a DCI for configuring a plurality of SPSs (see ¶0131, read as “one or more time and frequency groups”), an offset (i.e., cycle, see “100 ms” or “500 ms”, see ¶0131), and indication to activate or release the SPSs (see ¶0131, “…the UE releases, according to an instruction of the DCI, the resources corresponding to the service data in the cycles”, also see for example, ¶0117, “DCI is used to instruct the UE to activate the new SPS resource and release a target SPS resource”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to similarly includes within the DCI signaling of Sun an indication of a plurality of SPSs (i.e., “one or more time and frequency groups”), a cycle/offset for each group, and a valid/invalid indication (e.g., indicating to activate or release SPS resource(s)) as taught by Lu. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to reduce signaling overhead when configuring/changing SPS resource configurations (see Lu, ¶0005).
As per claim 8, Sun does not expressly teach wherein the one or more parameters of the SPS configuration in DCI signaling includes a release indication that indicates that at least one time and frequency resource is not used for transmitting or receiving data.
Nevertheless, in the same art of SPS resource configuring, Lu teaches transmitting DCI signaling, wherein the DCI includes a release indication that indicates that at least one time and frequency resource is not used for transmitting or receiving data (i.e., “release a target SPS resource”, see abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to similarly includes within the DCI signaling of Sun a release indication that indicates that at least one time and frequency resource is not used for transmitting or receiving data (i.e., “release a target SPS resource”, see Lu, abstract). The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to reduce signaling overhead when changing SPS resource configurations (see Lu, ¶0005).
As per claim 9, Sun does not expressly teach wherein the one or more parameters of the SPS configuration in DCI signaling includes an update indication that indicates that at least one parameter of the SPS configuration is updated by information included in the control signaling.
Nevertheless, in the same art as noted above, Lu teaches transmitting DCI signaling, wherein the DCI includes an update indication that indicates that at least one parameter of the SPS configuration is updated by information included in the control signaling (i.e., “activate the new SPS resource”, see abstract).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Sun and Lu in claim 8 applies equally well to claim 9.
Claims 15 are 19-20 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 2 and 8-9 since they recite substantially identical subject matter. Any differences between the claims do not result in patentably distinct claims and all of the limitations are taught by the above cited art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 16-17 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brendan Higa whose telephone number is (571)272-5823. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Hwang can be reached at (571) 272-4036. 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.
/BRENDAN Y HIGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights