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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 7-15, and 17-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Matsumura et al. (US 12,495,312), hereinafter Matsumura.
Regarding Claim 1, Matsumura teaches: A terminal capability indication method, comprising: sending, by a terminal, terminal capability information to a network side device, wherein the terminal capability information comprises a processing capability of the terminal for first control information and/or a processing capability of the terminal for second control information: “The time duration for QCL may be based on the UE capability, and may be, for example, based on a delay that is required for decoding of the PDCCH and beam switching . . . Information of the time duration for QCL may be reported from the UE to the base station as UE capability information, or may be configured from the base station to the UE by using higher layer signaling” (Matsumura Col 7 Line 64 – Col 8 Line 9); and receiving, by the terminal, at least two scheduling information, wherein the at least two scheduling information meet a requirement corresponding to the terminal capability information: “For multi-PDCCH design (for both of the ideal backhaul and the non-ideal backhaul), the maximum number of CORESETs for each piece of PDCCH configuration information (PDCCH-Config) may be increased to 5 in accordance with UE capability. The maximum number of CORESETs that may be configured with the same TRP may be up to the number reported by the UE capability” (Matsumura Col 12 Lines 49-55), and the scheduling information is at least one of the first control information or the second control information: “each of the multi-TRPs transmits different control signals to the UE, and the multi-TRPs transmit data signals thereto. In TRP 1, a first control signal (DCI) may be transmitted, and in TRP 2, a second control signal (DCI) may be transmitted. The UE receives each PDSCH transmitted from the multi-TRPs, based on these pieces of DCI” (Matsumura Col 9 Lines 52-58), wherein the first control information corresponds to N objects, and N is greater than or equal to 1: “DCI 1 schedules reception of PDSCH 1 and PDSCH 2. Scheduling offset 1 from reception of the DCI 1 to PDSCH 1 is smaller than a scheduling offset threshold. Scheduling offset 2 from reception of the DCI 1 to PDSCH 2 is smaller than the scheduling offset threshold” (Matsumura Col 14 Lines 24-28); and the second control information corresponds to M objects, and M is greater than or equal to 2: “FIG. 3D shows an example of a case (which may be referred to as a multi-master mode) in which each of the multi-TRPs transmits different control signals to the UE, and the multi-TRPs transmit data signals thereto. In TRP 1, a first control signal (DCI) may be transmitted, and in TRP 2, a second control signal (DCI) may be transmitted. The UE receives each PDSCH transmitted from the multi-TRPs, based on these pieces of DCI” (Matsumura Col 9 Lines 51-58 and Fig. 3D below).
PNG
media_image1.png
362
485
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3D
Regarding Claim 2, Matsumura teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the processing capability of the terminal for the first control information comprises at least one of the following: a capability of processing first control information within a first duration; a capability of processing first control information related to a first subcarrier spacing (SCS) : “The time duration for QCL may be based on the UE capability, and may be, for example, based on a delay that is required for decoding of the PDCCH and beam switching” (Matsumura Col 7 Lines 64-66); a capability of processing first control information related to a first SCS pair; a capability of processing first control information related to a first SCS combination; a capability of processing first control information related to a quantity of scheduled objects: “The maximum number of CORESETs that may be configured with the same TRP may be up to the number reported by the UE capability” (Matsumura Col 12 Lines 53-55); a capability of processing first control information related to a total quantity of scheduling object and scheduled object; a capability of processing first control information related to a relationship between an SCS of a scheduling object and an SCS of a scheduled object; a capability of processing first control information related to a relationship between SCSs of scheduled objects; a capability of processing first control information related to a first scheduling object; a capability of processing first control information related to a first scheduled object; a capability of processing first control information for time division multiplexing (TDD); a capability of processing first control information for frequency division multiplexing (FDD); a capability of processing first control information for a first frequency domain; a capability of processing first control information for a second frequency domain; a first monitoring capability; or a second monitoring capability.
Regarding Claim 3, Matsumura teaches: The method according to claim 2, wherein the capability of processing the first control information comprises a number of first control information: “For multi-PDCCH design (for both of the ideal backhaul and the non-ideal backhaul), the maximum number of CORESETs for each piece of PDCCH configuration information (PDCCH-Config) may be increased to 5 in accordance with UE capability. The maximum number of CORESETs that may be configured with the same TRP may be up to the number reported by the UE capability” (Matsumura Col 12 Lines 49-55).
Regarding Claim 4, Matsumura teaches: The method according to claim 3, wherein if the capability of processing the first control information is related to target control information: “For multi-PDCCH design (for both of the ideal backhaul and the non-ideal backhaul), the maximum number of CORESETs for each piece of PDCCH configuration information (PDCCH-Config) may be increased to 5 in accordance with UE capability. The maximum number of CORESETs that may be configured with the same TRP may be up to the number reported by the UE capability” (Matsumura Col 12 Lines 49-55), and the target control information corresponds to M objects, one target control information corresponds to A first control information, wherein A is greater than or equal to 1: “DCI 1 schedules reception of PDSCH 1 and PDSCH 2. Scheduling offset 1 from reception of the DCI 1 to PDSCH 1 is smaller than a scheduling offset threshold. Scheduling offset 2 from reception of the DCI 1 to PDSCH 2 is smaller than the scheduling offset threshold” (Matsumura Col 14 Lines 24-28); or for each scheduled object, one target control information corresponds to one first control information; or one target control information corresponds to M first control information.
Regarding Claim 5, Matsumura teaches: The method according to claim 4, wherein for a first feature, one target control information corresponds to A first control information, wherein the first feature comprises at least one of the following: B time units, wherein B is greater than or equal to 1: “DCI 1 schedules reception of PDSCH 1 and PDSCH 2. Scheduling offset 1 from reception of the DCI 1 to PDSCH 1 is smaller than a scheduling offset threshold. Scheduling offset 2 from reception of the DCI 1 to PDSCH 2 is smaller than the scheduling offset threshold” (Matsumura Col 14 Lines 24-28); an SCS of a scheduling object; an SCS of a scheduling object and an SCS of a scheduled object; a relationship between an SCS of a scheduling object and an SCS of a scheduled object; a scheduling object; or a scheduled object; or, wherein for a second feature, one target control information corresponds to one first control information for each scheduled object; and/or for a second feature, one target control information corresponds to M first control information, wherein the second feature comprises at least one of the following: C time units, wherein C is greater than or equal to 1; an SCS of a scheduling object; a relationship between an SCS of a scheduling object and an SCS of a scheduled object; or a scheduling object.
Regarding Claim 7, Matsumura teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the processing capability of the terminal for the second control information comprises at least one of the following: a capability of processing second control information within second duration; a capability of processing second control information related to a second SCS: “The time duration for QCL may be based on the UE capability, and may be, for example, based on a delay that is required for decoding of the PDCCH and beam switching” (Matsumura Col 7 Lines 64-66); a capability of processing second control information related to a second SCS pair; a capability of processing second control information related to an SCS combination of a scheduled object; a capability of processing second control information related to a second SCS combination; a capability of processing second control information related to a quantity of scheduled objects; a capability of processing second control information related to a total quantity of scheduling object and scheduled object; a capability of processing second control information related to a relationship between an SCS of a scheduling object and an SCS of a scheduled object; a capability of processing second control information related to a relationship between SCSs of scheduled objects; a capability of processing second control information related to a second scheduling object; a capability of processing second control information related to a second scheduled object; a capability of processing second control information for TDD; a capability of processing second control information for FDD; a capability of processing second control information for a third frequency domain; a capability of processing second control information for a fourth frequency domain; a third monitoring capability; or a fourth monitoring capability; wherein the second SCS comprises at least one of the following: an SCS of a scheduling object; an SCS of a scheduled object; a maximum SCS in an SCS of a scheduling object and an SCS of a scheduled object; a minimum SCS in an SCS of a scheduling object and an SCS of a scheduled object; a target SCS of a scheduling object; a target SCS of a scheduled object; a schedulable SCS; a first target SCS in schedulable SCSs; an SCS that can be used for a scheduling object; a second target SCS in SCSs that can be used for scheduling objects; an SCS that can be used; a third target SCS in SCSs that can be used; or a fourth target SCS in an object group.
Regarding Claim 8, Matsumura teaches: The method according to claim 7, wherein the relationship between the SCS of the scheduling object and the SCS of the scheduled object comprises at least one of the following: an SCS of a scheduling object is higher than an SCS of a scheduled object; an SCS of a scheduling object is equal to an SCS of a scheduled object; an SCS of a scheduling object is lower than an SCS of a scheduled object: “The time duration for QCL may be based on the UE capability, and may be, for example, based on a delay that is required for decoding of the PDCCH and beam switching. The time duration for QCL may be a minimum period of time that is required for the UE to perform PDCCH reception and application of spatial QCL information received in the DCI for PDSCH processing. The time duration for QCL may be represented by the number of symbols for each subcarrier spacing, or may be represented by time (for example, has)” (Matsumura Col 7 Lines 64 – Col 8 Line 6); an SCS of a scheduling object is different from an SCS of a scheduled object; an SCS of a scheduling object is the same as an SCS of a scheduled object; or a ratio of an SCS of a scheduling object to an SCS of a scheduled object is L.
Regarding Claim 9, Matsumura teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the terminal capability information comprises at least one of the following: terminal capability information corresponding to a scheduling object: “The time duration for QCL may be based on the UE capability, and may be, for example, based on a delay that is required for decoding of the PDCCH and beam switching . . . Information of the time duration for QCL may be reported from the UE to the base station as UE capability information, or may be configured from the base station to the UE by using higher layer signaling” (Matsumura Col 7 Line 64 – Col 8 Line 9); terminal capability information corresponding to an SCS of a scheduling object: “The time duration for QCL may be based on the UE capability, and may be, for example, based on a delay that is required for decoding of the PDCCH and beam switching” (Matsumura Col 7 Lines 64-66); terminal capability information corresponding to an SCS of a scheduled object; terminal capability information corresponding to a case that an SCS of a scheduling object is higher than an SCS of a scheduled object; terminal capability information corresponding to a case that an SCS of a scheduling object is equal to an SCS of a scheduled object; terminal capability information corresponding to a case that an SCS of a scheduling object is lower than an SCS of a scheduled object; terminal capability information corresponding to a case that a ratio of an SCS of a scheduling object to an SCS of a scheduled object is L; terminal capability information corresponding to a quantity of supported scheduled objects; terminal capability information corresponding to a total quantity of scheduling object and supported scheduled object; terminal capability information corresponding to a band; terminal capability information corresponding to a band combination; terminal capability information corresponding to an object combination; terminal capability information indicated corresponding to a feature set; terminal capability information corresponding to a half duplex mode; terminal capability information corresponding to a frequency range; or terminal capability information corresponding to an SCS combination of a scheduling object and a scheduled object.
Regarding Claim 10, Matsumura teaches: A scheduling method, comprising: processing, by a communication device, control information based on a scheduling constraint, wherein the scheduling constraint comprises a scheduling constraint on first control information and/or a scheduling constraint on second control information: “M (M≥1) TCI states for the PDSCH (M pieces of QCL information for the PDSCH) may be reported (configured) for the UE by using higher layer signaling. Note that the number M of TCI states configured for the UE may be restricted by at least one of UE capability and the QCL type” (Matsumura Col 6 Lines 30-34), wherein the first control information corresponds to N objects, and N is greater than or equal to 1: “DCI 1 schedules reception of PDSCH 1 and PDSCH 2. Scheduling offset 1 from reception of the DCI 1 to PDSCH 1 is smaller than a scheduling offset threshold. Scheduling offset 2 from reception of the DCI 1 to PDSCH 2 is smaller than the scheduling offset threshold” (Matsumura Col 14 Lines 24-28); and the second control information corresponds to M objects, and M is greater than or equal to 2: “FIG. 3D shows an example of a case (which may be referred to as a multi-master mode) in which each of the multi-TRPs transmits different control signals to the UE, and the multi-TRPs transmit data signals thereto. In TRP 1, a first control signal (DCI) may be transmitted, and in TRP 2, a second control signal (DCI) may be transmitted. The UE receives each PDSCH transmitted from the multi-TRPs, based on these pieces of DCI” (Matsumura Col 9 Lines 51-58 and Fig. 3D above).
Regarding Claim 11, Matsumura teaches: The method according to claim 10, wherein the method further comprises: obtaining terminal capability information, wherein the terminal capability information comprises a processing capability of a terminal for the first control information and/or a processing capability of a terminal for the second control information: “The time duration for QCL may be based on the UE capability, and may be, for example, based on a delay that is required for decoding of the PDCCH and beam switching . . . Information of the time duration for QCL may be reported from the UE to the base station as UE capability information, or may be configured from the base station to the UE by using higher layer signaling” (Matsumura Col 7 Line 64 – Col 8 Line 9), wherein the scheduling constraint meets a terminal capability indicated by the terminal capability information: “M (M≥1) TCI states for the PDSCH (M pieces of QCL information for the PDSCH) may be reported (configured) for the UE by using higher layer signaling. Note that the number M of TCI states configured for the UE may be restricted by at least one of UE capability and the QCL type” (Matsumura Col 6 Lines 30-34).
Regarding Claim 12, Matsumura teaches: The method according to claim 10, wherein the scheduling constraint on the first control information comprises at least one of the following: a scheduling constraint on first control information within a first duration; a scheduling constraint on first control information related to a first SCS: “The time duration for QCL may be based on the UE capability, and may be, for example, based on a delay that is required for decoding of the PDCCH and beam switching” (Matsumura Col 7 Lines 64-66); a scheduling constraint on first control information related to a first SCS pair; a scheduling constraint on first control information related to a first SCS combination; a scheduling constraint on first control information related to a quantity of scheduled objects: “The maximum number of CORESETs that may be configured with the same TRP may be up to the number reported by the UE capability” (Matsumura Col 12 Lines 53-55); a scheduling constraint on second control information related to a total quantity of scheduling object and scheduled object; a scheduling constraint on first control information related to a relationship between an SCS of a scheduling object and an SCS of a scheduled object; a scheduling constraint on first control information related to a relationship between SCSs of scheduled objects; a scheduling constraint on first control information related to a first scheduling object; a scheduling constraint on first control information related to a first scheduled object; a scheduling constraint on first control information for time division multiplexing (TDD); a scheduling constraint on first control information for frequency division multiplexing (FDD); a scheduling constraint on first control information for a first frequency domain; a scheduling constraint on first control information for a second band; a scheduling constraint related to a first monitoring capability; or a scheduling constraint related to a second monitoring capability.
Regarding Claim 13, Matsumura teaches: The method according to claim 12, wherein the scheduling constraint on the first control information comprises a number of first control information: “For multi-PDCCH design (for both of the ideal backhaul and the non-ideal backhaul), the maximum number of CORESETs for each piece of PDCCH configuration information (PDCCH-Config) may be increased to 5 in accordance with UE capability. The maximum number of CORESETs that may be configured with the same TRP may be up to the number reported by the UE capability” (Matsumura Col 12 Lines 49-55).
Regarding Claim 14, Matsumura teaches: The method according to claim 13, wherein if the scheduling constraint on the first control information is related to target control information: “For multi-PDCCH design (for both of the ideal backhaul and the non-ideal backhaul), the maximum number of CORESETs for each piece of PDCCH configuration information (PDCCH-Config) may be increased to 5 in accordance with UE capability. The maximum number of CORESETs that may be configured with the same TRP may be up to the number reported by the UE capability” (Matsumura Col 12 Lines 49-55), and the target control information corresponds to M objects, one target control information corresponds to A first control information, wherein A is greater than or equal to 1: “DCI 1 schedules reception of PDSCH 1 and PDSCH 2. Scheduling offset 1 from reception of the DCI 1 to PDSCH 1 is smaller than a scheduling offset threshold. Scheduling offset 2 from reception of the DCI 1 to PDSCH 2 is smaller than the scheduling offset threshold” (Matsumura Col 14 Lines 24-28); or for each scheduled object, one target control information corresponds to one first control information; or one target control information corresponds to M first control information.
Regarding Claim 15, Matsumura teaches: The method according to claim 14, wherein for a first feature, one target control information corresponds to A first control information, wherein the first feature comprises at least one of the following: B time units, wherein B is greater than or equal to 1: “DCI 1 schedules reception of PDSCH 1 and PDSCH 2. Scheduling offset 1 from reception of the DCI 1 to PDSCH 1 is smaller than a scheduling offset threshold. Scheduling offset 2 from reception of the DCI 1 to PDSCH 2 is smaller than the scheduling offset threshold” (Matsumura Col 14 Lines 24-28); an SCS of a scheduling object; an SCS of a scheduling object and an SCS of a scheduled object; a relationship between an SCS of a scheduling object and an SCS of a scheduled object; a scheduling object; or a scheduled object; or, wherein for a second feature, one target control information corresponds to one first control information for each scheduled object; and/or for a second feature, one target control information corresponds to M first control information, wherein the second feature comprises at least one of the following: C time units, wherein C is greater than or equal to 1; an SCS of a scheduling object; a relationship between an SCS of a scheduling object and an SCS of a scheduled object; or a scheduling object.
Regarding Claim 17, Matsumura teaches: The method according to claim 10, wherein the scheduling constraint on the second control information comprises at least one of the following: a scheduling constraint on second control information within second duration; a scheduling constraint on second control information related to a second SCS: “The time duration for QCL may be based on the UE capability, and may be, for example, based on a delay that is required for decoding of the PDCCH and beam switching” (Matsumura Col 7 Lines 64-66); a scheduling constraint on second control information related to a second SCS pair; a scheduling constraint on second control information related to an SCS combination of a scheduled object; a scheduling constraint on second control information related to a second SCS combination; a scheduling constraint on second control information related to a quantity of scheduled objects; a scheduling constraint on second control information related to a total quantity of scheduling object and scheduled object; a scheduling constraint on second control information related to a relationship between an SCS of a scheduling object and an SCS of a scheduled object; a scheduling constraint on second control information related to a relationship between SCSs of scheduled objects; a scheduling constraint on second control information related to a second scheduling object; a scheduling constraint on second control information related to a second scheduled object; a scheduling constraint on second control information for TDD; a scheduling constraint on second control information for FDD; a scheduling constraint on second control information for a third frequency domain; a scheduling constraint on second control information for a fourth frequency domain; a scheduling constraint related to a third monitoring capability; or a scheduling constraint related to a fourth monitoring capability; wherein the second SCS comprises at least one of the following: an SCS of a scheduling object; an SCS of a scheduled object; a maximum SCS in an SCS of a scheduling object and an SCS of a scheduled object; a minimum SCS in an SCS of a scheduling object and an SCS of a scheduled object; a target SCS of a scheduling object; a target SCS of a scheduled object; a schedulable SCS; a first target SCS in schedulable SCSs; an SCS that can be used for a scheduling object; a second target SCS in SCSs that can be used for scheduling objects; an SCS that can be used; a third target SCS in SCSs that can be used; or a fourth target SCS in an object group.
Regarding Claim 18, Matsumura teaches: The method according to claim 10, wherein the scheduling constraint comprises at least one of: a scheduling constraint for a scheduling object; a scheduling constraint for an SCS of a scheduling object: “The time duration for QCL may be based on the UE capability, and may be, for example, based on a delay that is required for decoding of the PDCCH and beam switching . . . Information of the time duration for QCL may be reported from the UE to the base station as UE capability information, or may be configured from the base station to the UE by using higher layer signaling” (Matsumura Col 7 Line 64 – Col 8 Line 9); a scheduling constraint for an SCS of a scheduled object: “The time duration for QCL may be based on the UE capability, and may be, for example, based on a delay that is required for decoding of the PDCCH and beam switching” (Matsumura Col 7 Lines 64-66); a scheduling constraint in a case that an SCS of a scheduling object is higher than an SCS of a scheduled object; a scheduling constraint in a case that an SCS of a scheduling object is equal to an SCS of a scheduled object; terminal capability information corresponding to a case that an SCS of a scheduling object is lower than an SCS of a scheduled object; a scheduling constraint in a case that a ratio of an SCS of a scheduling object to an SCS of a scheduled object is L; a scheduling constraint for a quantity of supported scheduled objects; a scheduling constraint for a total quantity of scheduling object and supported scheduled object; a scheduling constraint for a band; a scheduling constraint for a band combination; a scheduling constraint for an object combination; a scheduling constraint for a feature set indication; a scheduling constraint for a half duplex mode; a scheduling constraint for an SCS combination of a scheduling object and a scheduled object; or a scheduling constraint for a frequency range.
Regarding Claim 19, Matsumura teaches: A terminal, comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores a program or an instruction that can be run on the processor, wherein the program or the instruction, when executed by the processor: “Each function of the base station 10 and the user terminals 20 is implemented, for example, by allowing certain software (programs) to be read on hardware such as the processor 1001 and the memory 1002, and by allowing the processor 1001 to perform calculations to control communication via the communication apparatus 1004 and control at least one of reading and writing of data in the memory 1002 and the storage 1003” (Matsumura Col 32 Line 64 – Col 33 Line 4), causes the terminal to perform: sending terminal capability information to a network side device, wherein the terminal capability information comprises a processing capability of the terminal for first control information and/or a processing capability of the terminal for second control information: “The time duration for QCL may be based on the UE capability, and may be, for example, based on a delay that is required for decoding of the PDCCH and beam switching . . . Information of the time duration for QCL may be reported from the UE to the base station as UE capability information, or may be configured from the base station to the UE by using higher layer signaling” (Matsumura Col 7 Line 64 – Col 8 Line 9); and receiving at least two scheduling information, wherein the at least two scheduling information meet a requirement corresponding to the terminal capability information: “For multi-PDCCH design (for both of the ideal backhaul and the non-ideal backhaul), the maximum number of CORESETs for each piece of PDCCH configuration information (PDCCH-Config) may be increased to 5 in accordance with UE capability. The maximum number of CORESETs that may be configured with the same TRP may be up to the number reported by the UE capability” (Matsumura Col 12 Lines 49-55), and the scheduling information is at least one of the first control information or the second control information: “each of the multi-TRPs transmits different control signals to the UE, and the multi-TRPs transmit data signals thereto. In TRP 1, a first control signal (DCI) may be transmitted, and in TRP 2, a second control signal (DCI) may be transmitted. The UE receives each PDSCH transmitted from the multi-TRPs, based on these pieces of DCI” (Matsumura Col 9 Lines 52-58), wherein the first control information corresponds to N objects, and N is greater than or equal to 1: “DCI 1 schedules reception of PDSCH 1 and PDSCH 2. Scheduling offset 1 from reception of the DCI 1 to PDSCH 1 is smaller than a scheduling offset threshold. Scheduling offset 2 from reception of the DCI 1 to PDSCH 2 is smaller than the scheduling offset threshold” (Matsumura Col 14 Lines 24-28); and the second control information corresponds to M objects, and M is greater than or equal to 2: “FIG. 3D shows an example of a case (which may be referred to as a multi-master mode) in which each of the multi-TRPs transmits different control signals to the UE, and the multi-TRPs transmit data signals thereto. In TRP 1, a first control signal (DCI) may be transmitted, and in TRP 2, a second control signal (DCI) may be transmitted. The UE receives each PDSCH transmitted from the multi-TRPs, based on these pieces of DCI” (Matsumura Col 9 Lines 51-58 and Fig. 3D above).
Regarding Claim 20, Matsumura teaches: A communication device, comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores a program or an instruction that can be run on the processor, and the program or the instruction is executed by the processor to implement the steps of the scheduling method according to claim 10: “the above-described base station 10 and user terminal 20 may each be formed as a computer apparatus that includes a processor 1001, a memory 1002, a storage 1003, a communication apparatus 1004, an input apparatus 1005, an output apparatus 1006, a bus 1007, and so on” (Matsumura Col 32 Lines 45-51).
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.
The factual inquiries 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 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura as applied to claims 1 and 10 in further view of Fakoorian et al. (US 2024/0205923), hereinafter Fakoorian.
Regarding Claim 6, Matsumura teaches: The method according to claim 1.
Matsumura does not teach: in a case that the terminal capability information comprises the processing capability of the terminal for the second control information, the terminal capability information further comprises at least one of the following: a processing capability for third control information; a joint processing capability for the second control information and the first control information; or a joint processing capability for the second control information and the third control information, wherein the third control information corresponds to one object.
Regarding Claim 6, Fakoorian teaches: in a case that the terminal capability information comprises the processing capability of the terminal for the second control information, the terminal capability information further comprises at least one of the following: a joint processing capability for the second control information and the first control information: “In some embodiments, the base station may generate the DCI to include the K2 value to accommodate the joint processing operations. This may be based on feedback from the target UE that provides UE capability information (including sidelink and uplink processing capabilities for the target UE and the assistant UE) and, potentially, information regarding the type of configuration information provided to the assistant U” (Fakoorian ¶ 0071).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Matsumura with Fakoorian for the purpose of reducing periods and the amount of configuration information needed to communicate between aggregated UEs. According to Fakoorian: “The amount of time for each of the first and second time periods may be based on processing capabilities of the target UE 104 and the assistant UE 106 as well as the type of configuration information transmitted. For example, if the target UE 104 initially provides sufficient configuration information to allow the assistant UE 106 to decode the DCI in the PDCCH 404, less configuration information may need to be communicated between the aggregated UEs and the N.sub.a/N.sub.b periods will be smaller” (Fakoorian ¶ 0052).
Regarding Claim 16, Matsumura teaches: The method according to claim 10.
Matsumura does not teach: in a case that the scheduling constraint comprises the scheduling constraint on the second control information, the scheduling constraint further comprises at least one of the following: a scheduling constraint on third control information; a joint scheduling constraint on the second control information and the first control information; or a joint scheduling constraint on the second control information and the third control information, wherein the second control information corresponds to one object.
Regarding Claim 16, Fakoorian teaches: in a case that the scheduling constraint comprises the scheduling constraint on the second control information, the scheduling constraint further comprises at least one of the following: a scheduling constraint on third control information; a joint scheduling constraint on the second control information and the first control information; or a joint scheduling constraint on the second control information and the third control information, wherein the second control information corresponds to one object: “In some embodiments, the base station may generate the DCI to include the K2 value to accommodate the joint processing operations. This may be based on feedback from the target UE that provides UE capability information (including sidelink and uplink processing capabilities for the target UE and the assistant UE) and, potentially, information regarding the type of configuration information provided to the assistant U” (Fakoorian ¶ 0071).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Matsumura with Fakoorian for the purpose of reducing periods and the amount of configuration information needed to communicate between aggregated UEs. According to Fakoorian: “The amount of time for each of the first and second time periods may be based on processing capabilities of the target UE 104 and the assistant UE 106 as well as the type of configuration information transmitted. For example, if the target UE 104 initially provides sufficient configuration information to allow the assistant UE 106 to decode the DCI in the PDCCH 404, less configuration information may need to be communicated between the aggregated UEs and the N.sub.a/N.sub.b periods will be smaller” (Fakoorian ¶ 0052).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY DAVIS LYTLE whose telephone number is (703)756-4593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, Kwang bin Yao can be reached at 571-272-3182. 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.
/B.D.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2473
/BRADLEY D LYTLE JR./Examiner, Art Unit 2473
/KWANG B YAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2473
Prosecution Insights