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 .
The preliminary amendment filed on 01/23/2025 has been entered. Claim 1 has been canceled and claims 2-21 are newly added. Therefore, claims 2-21 are pending and addressed below.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. KR 10-2020-0096379, filed July 31, 2020, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
This earliest priority document does not disclose the claims. Accordingly, claims 2-21 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application KR 10-2020-0096379 dated 2020/07/31.
Examiner Note: Applicant is advised to check all other priority applications for support of the claims, and claim priority accordingly. Prior art search is impacted by the properly claimed priority date.
Specification
The title of the invention is not proper descriptive of the claimed invention. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not describe the claimed invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 7-9 and 16-17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 7, 16 recite one cell has pattern of information and claims 8, 17 recite bitmap of information for one cell, implying “one cell” comprises multiple cells. However, claim 1 implies it is a single cell. Therefore, claims lack clarity on whether one cell comprises a single cell or multiple cells. Applicant is advised to use a different terminology to recite “one cell” throughout all the claims to uniquely define “one cell”.
Claims 7, 16 expression “pattern information for application of the one cell in a time domain” is not understood. It is not clear about the meaning of pattern information, therefore, making it indefinite. Combining claims 7 and 8 will provide a definite meaning to the expression “pattern information”.
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.
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 2-7, 11-16 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE; Sunyoung et al US 20170373800 A1, hereinafter LEE, in view of Li; Bingzhao et al US 20170325220 A1, hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 2, 11 and 19, LEE teaches, a method of a user equipment (UE), the method comprising:
receiving configuration information of a plurality of cells for a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) transmission from a base station (LEE [0159] “In this invention, a UE is configured with PUCCH resources on at least one cell other than a special cell (i.e. PCell or PSCell)”, [0160] “For a UE, the network configures on at least one cell other than a special cell with PUCCH resource by transmitting an RRC signaling (S1001).”);
transmitting a PUCCH for a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) in the one cell indicated by the base station to the base station (LEE [0053] “A base station and a UE mostly transmit/receive data via a PDSCH”, [159] “generates a HARQ feedbacks by multiplexing the HARQ feedbacks of all cells configured for the UE, selects one cell with PUCCH resource among all cells with PUCCH resource, and transmits the multiplexed HARQ feedbacks on the selected cell.”).
While LEE suggests, receiving information indicating one cell for PUCCH cell switching among the plurality of cells from the base station (“PUCCH cell switching among the plurality of cells” is interpreted as PUCCH cell selection. LEE [0165] “When the UE selects the cell among all cells configured with PUCCH resource to transmit the generated HARQ feedback, […], or the UE selects the cell with the PUCCH resource which has a highest priority”, [0166] “Especially, before the UE selects the cell with the PUCCH resource which has a highest priority, the UE receives the priority of the at least two cell with the PUCCH resources by receiving a Physical layer (PHY), Medium Access Control (MAC), or Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling from a network.”. ), Li expressly teaches, receiving information indicating one cell for PUCCH cell switching among the plurality of cells from the base station (Li Figs. 1, 2; [0085] “S101: The UE receives correspondence indication information sent by a base station, where the correspondence indication information is used to indicate a currently-used correspondence.”, [0086] “The correspondence includes information about a first cell and a second cell corresponding to the first cell. The first cell is a cell for which a PUCCH is already configured, and uplink feedback information of the second cell is borne by using the PUCCH of the first cell corresponding to the second cell.”, [89], [92] “the correspondence indication information includes indication information of activating the first correspondence or the second correspondence.”, [0094] “That is, the UE receives multiple groups of correspondences, and each group of correspondences corresponds to a serial number. The base station instructs, by including serial number information of an activated correspondence in the correspondence indication information, the UE to use which group of correspondences.”, teaches, base station indicates which PUCCH cell to be used (i.e., switching) via activating a correspondence comprising a PUCCH cell for a group of cells).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of LEE to expressly include the features as taught by Li above in order to provide a physical uplink shared channels (PUCCH) configuration method, to reduce load of a cell for which a PUCCH is configured (Li [0006]).
With respect to claim 11, claim recites the identical features of claim 2 for a corresponding method for inter-working transmitting side. Therefore, it is subjected to the same rejection.
With respect to claim 19, claim recites the identical features of claim 2 for a corresponding UE. Therefore, it is subjected to the same rejection.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, LEE, in view of Li, teaches the methods, as outlined in the rejection of claims 2 and 11.
LEE further teaches, further comprising: receiving the PDSCH in a first cell from the base station (implied in LEE, see LEE [53]).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, LEE, in view of Li, teaches the methods, as outlined in the rejection of claims 3 and 12.
LEE further teaches, wherein the first cell is a primary cell (PCell) or a secondary cell (SCell) (see LEE [74], [159], [129], teaches PCell or SCell (other cells) having PUCCH).
Regarding claims 5, 14 and 20, LEE, in view of Li, teaches the methods/UE, as outlined in the rejection of claims 2, 11 and 19.
LEE and Li further teach, wherein the information indicating the one cell is included in downlink control information (DCI), and the DCI further includes scheduling information of the PDSCH (see Li [14] “the receiving, by a UE, correspondence indication information sent by a base station includes: receiving, by the UE at an L1 moment, the correspondence indication information by using […] or a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH)”; LEE [0166] “Especially, before the UE selects the cell with the PUCCH resource which has a highest priority, the UE receives the priority of the at least two cell with the PUCCH resources by receiving a Physical layer (PHY),”, PDCCH physical channel is well-known in 3GPP wireless to carry DCI information, and PDCCH further schedules PDSCH (see LEE [53]).
Regarding claims 6, 15 and 21, LEE, in view of Li, teaches the methods/UE, as outlined in the rejection of claims 2, 11 and 19.
LEE and Li further teach, wherein the information indicating the one cell is included in a radio resource control (RRC) message (see Li [14] “the receiving, by a UE, correspondence indication information sent by a base station includes: receiving, by the UE at an L1 moment, the correspondence indication information by using radio resource control RRC signaling,”; LEE [0160], [0166] “Especially, before the UE selects the cell with the PUCCH resource which has a highest priority, the UE receives the priority of the at least two cell with the PUCCH resources by receiving a […] or Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling from a network.”).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, LEE, in view of Li, teaches the methods, as outlined in the rejection of claims 6 and 15.
LEE further teaches, wherein the RRC message further includes pattern information for application of the one cell in a time domain (The “pattern information” in the RRC is interpreted as having multiple PUCCH cells in a RRC message with an indication of cells. LEE [0161] “Preferably, the RRC signaling includes at least one of an indication of a PUCCH resource, and an indication of a cell for which PUCCH resource is configured”).
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE, in view of Li, as applied to the rejection of claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of SALEM; MOHAMED ADEL US 20200275430 A1, hereinafter SALEM.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, LEE, in view of Li, teaches the methods, as outlined in the rejection of claims 7 and 16.
LEE and Li do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, SALEM teaches, wherein the pattern information is a bitmap, the bitmap indicates whether the one cell is applied to a slot corresponding to each bit of the bitmap, and the PUCCH transmission is possible in one or more slots to which the one cell is applied (SALEM [110] “the cross-carrier PUCCH indication bitmap 474 indicates the cells on which the PUCCH resources are indicated. In the example in FIG. 15, a PUCCH resource is indicated in cells 0, 2, and 5, as indicated by the presence of ‘1’ in the positions in the bitmap 474 that correspond to cells 0, 2, and 5. The PUCCH resource actually allocated in each of cells 0, 2, and 5 is indicated by the respective 3-bit field value in the respective field of the multi-PUCCH-resource indicator bitmap 480.”, teaches bitmap based indication of PUCCH cells; [0103] “FIG. 13 illustrates a variation of FIG. 9 in which the base station 170 indicates a PUCCH resource on a cell during a time slot in which the base station 170 has also scheduled the UE 110 to transmit a TB on a PUSCH. In FIG. 13, PUCCH 2 is allocated during the same time slot and on the same cell as the uplink transmission of TB 430.”, teaches PUCCH transmission in a slot; [0210] (1) “The base station uses higher-layer signaling to pre-configure the UE with a number of PUCCH resource sets”, [93] “One example of higher-layer signaling is radio resource control (RRC) signaling.”, teaches using RRC for PUCCH information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of LEE and Li to include the features as taught by SALEM above in order to provide systems and methods that improve the reliability of wireless communication, and particularly uplink wireless communication, in unlicensed spectrum (SALEM [0006]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE, in view of Li, as applied to the rejection of claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of XU; Changlong et al US 20230199745 A1, hereinafter XU.
Regarding claim 9, LEE, in view of Li, teaches the methods, as outlined in the rejection of claim 7.
LEE and Li do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, XU teaches, wherein a period of the patten information is a divisor of 20 milliseconds (ms) (The claim is interpreted as PUCCH resource allocation being periodic. XU [115] “the base station 105-a may include in an SPS-related configuration may include […] an n1PUCCH-AN parameter that indicates a HARQ resource for a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) for downlink SPS, […] a periodicity parameter that indicates a periodicity of allocated resources (such as 10 ms, 20 ms, 32 ms, 40 ms, 64 ms, 80 ms, 128 ms, 160 ms, 320 ms, 640 ms, and so on)”, teaches allocation of PUCCH resource can be in multiple of 20 ms).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of LEE and Li to include the features as taught by XU above for improved semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) and configured grant transmissions (XU [0002]).
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE, in view of Li, as applied to the rejection of claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Kittichokechai; Kittipong et al US 20240015748 A1, hereinafter Kittichokechai.
Regarding claims 10 and 18, LEE, in view of Li, teaches the methods, as outlined in the rejection of claims 2 and 11.
LEE and Li do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Kittichokechai teaches, wherein, when the PUCCH transmission is repeated PUCCH transmissions, the repeated PUCCH transmissions are performed in same cell which is the one cell (Kittichokechai [35] “a method performed by a wireless device for transmitting on a PUCCH includes: receiving a configuration indicating PUCCH repetition; and transmitting repeated PUCCH transmissions based on the configuration.”, teaches repeated PUCCH transmission in a cell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of LEE and Li to include the features as taught by Kittichokechai above to provide methods for flexible configuration and indication of PUCCH repetition, including the number of repetitions, based on Uplink Control Information (UCI) type and/or priority of the UCI (Kittichokechai Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
BAE; Duckhyun US 20240236986 A1, METHOD, USER EQUIPMENT, PROCESSING DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM FOR TRANSMITTING HARQ-ACK INFORMATION, AND METHOD AND BASE STATION FOR RECEIVING HARQ-ACK INFORMATION (Note: date after Applicant’s claimed earliest priority date, which is objected above).
Yi; Yunjung US 20210051650 A1, PUCCH SCell Configuration In Multi-TRP Scenario
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-0232. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM EST; Friday variable.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached on 571-270-3770. 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.
/MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights