DETAILED ACTION
This communication is response to the application filed 10/21/2024. Claims 2-19 are pending and presented for examination. A preliminary amendment submitted 10/23/2024 is acknowledged and entered.
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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2024, 12/11/2024, 01/31/2025, 03/12/2025, 04/17/2025, 08/29/2025, 11/20/2025, 03/03/2025, 05/07/2026, and 09/11/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 2-19 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.
Regarding claims 2, 8, and 14, the feature “a state of a secondary cell … converts” is unclear and vague. The claim fails to define the state of the secondary cell and fails to specify the states between which the secondary cell is converted. Thus, the technical meaning and scope of the indicated “state conversion” cannot be clearly determined from the claim limitations. Thus, the claim language is unclear and renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding claims 2, 8, and 14, the claim is unclear because the relationship between the indicated secondary cell state conversion and the HARQ-ACK information recited in the subsequent alternatives is not defined. In particular, the claim does not specify what transmission or information is acknowledged by the HARQ-ACK, and it is therefore unclear whether the HARQ-ACK is associated with the control information indicating the state conversion or with another transmission. This casts doubt on the scope of the claimed invention and thus renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding claims 4, 10, and 16, features (i)-(Vii) are defined using “at least one of”, thereby encompassing numerous combinations without specifying how the alternatives relate to or may be combined with each other. Since the alternatives concern different DCI fields and different HARQ-ACK mechanisms, it is unclear which combinations are technically intended or compatible. This casts doubt on the scope of the claimed invention, and thus renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding claims 5, 11, and 17, features (i)-(Vii) are defined using “at least one of”, thereby encompassing numerous combinations without specifying how the different DCI-field reinterpretations relate to or may combined with each other. It is therefore unclear which combinations are technically intended or compatible. This casts doubt on the scope of the claimed invention, and thus renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding claims 3, 6-7, 9, 12-13, 15, and 18-19, they are rejected since they depend(s) on rejected base claims.
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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 8-10, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NPL, “Fast SCell Activation and SCell Dormancy” by Qualcomm (hereafter Qualcomm), see IDS dated 9/11/2026.
Regarding claim 1, Qualcomm discloses a data processing method, comprising:
sending, by a first communication node to a second communication node, first control information (see Qualcomm, page 9, section 2.4.1: sending, by a first communication node to a second communication node, first control information),
wherein the first control information comprises information for indicating that a state of a secondary cell serving the second communication node converts (see Qualcomm, page 9, section 2.4.1: the trigger to transition to an active BWP and sending, by a first communication node to a second communication node, first control information; page 10, section 2.4.2: a DCI decoded in PCell to rigger SCells to transition from dormant BWP….. some of the unused DCI fields can carry the SCell control bitmap… This bitmap can contains the BWP IDs for the target BWP that the SCells should go to); and
wherein the first control information further comprises at least one of following: information for indicating that the first control information is not used for scheduling user data, information for determining a hybrid automatic repeat request-acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) information resource of the first control information, information for determining an interval timing from a slot where the first control information is located to a slot where HARQ-ACK of the first control information is located, information for determining an interval from a first subslot where the first control information is located to a second subslot where HARQ-ACK of the first control information is located, information for determining a location of HARQ-ACK of the first control information in a dynamic HARQ-ACK codebook, information of a priority of HARQ-ACK of the first control information, or information for determining a location of HARQ-ACK of the first control information in a semi-persistent HARQ-ACK codebook (see Qualcomm, page10, section 2.4.1: UE is expected to send HARQ acknowledgement on the configured PUCCH resource associated with the DCI; page 14, Appendix 5.1, Option 1, item g: The dedicated DCI is not expected to be use for data scheduling).
Regarding claim 3, Qualcomm discloses the data processing method according to claim 2, wherein the first control information sets or re-interprets a part of bit fields in a format of downlink control information (DCI) of downlink scheduling data or uplink scheduling data by using the format of the DCI (see Qualcomm, page 10, section 2.4.1: New DCI information to trigger BWP switch from dormant BWP on SCell and/or fast SCell activation should be based on reusing an existing DCI of C-RNTI that the UE is expected to monitor for DL scheduling but with special values in one or more existing fields to allow reinterpreting other field(s) as containing the new information. UE is expected to send acknowledgement based on the HARQ-ACK resource indicated by the DCI).
Regarding claim 4, Qualcomm discloses the data processing method according to claim 3, wherein the setting or re- interpreting of the part of bit fields in the format of DCI of the downlink scheduling data comprising at least one of following: i) reusing a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resource indication domain in the DCI; ii) re-interpreting a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH)-to-HARQ-ACK timing feedback domain in the DCI as the interval timing from the slot where the first control information is located to the slot where the HARQ-ACK of the first control information is located; iii) re-interpreting a PDSCH-to-HARQ-ACK timing feedback domain in the DCI as the interval timing from the subslot where the first control information is located to the subslot where the HARQ-ACK of the first control information is located; iv) re-interpreting a downlink assignment index (DAI) domain in the DCI as for determining the location of the HARQ-ACK of the first control information in the dynamic HARQ-ACK codebook; v) re-interpreting a PDSCH time domain resource allocation domain in the DCI as for determining the location of the HARQ-ACK of the first control information in the semi- persistent HARQ-ACK codebook; vi) setting a PDSCH frequency domain resource allocation domain in the DCI as an agreed value, wherein the agreed value is used for representing that a bit field in the format of the DCI of the downlink scheduling data is used as the first control information; or vii) re-interpreting one bit field in the DCI as for determining the priority of the HARQ- ACK of the first control information, wherein the one bit field does not comprise a PUCCH resource indication domain, a PDSCH-to-HARQ-ACK timing feedback domain, a DAI domain, a PDSCH time domain resource allocation domain and a PDSCH frequency domain resource allocation domain (see Qualcomm, page 10, section 2.4.1: One example is to use the frequency domain resource allocation (FDRA) field. The value of all 1’s is not valid for normal usage for scheduling and it can be used ….to indicate that the DCI content should have the new interpretation; page 10, section 2.4.1: reusing an existing DCI of C-RNTI that the UE is expected to monitor for DL scheduling but with special values in one or more existing fields to allow reinterpreting other field(s) as containing the new information).
Regarding claim 8, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 9, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 10, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 2. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 2.
Regarding claim 15, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 3. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 4. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 4.
Claim(s) 2, 8, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by EP 4027733 A1 to LG Electronics Inc. (hereafter LG), see IDS dated 09/11/2026.
Regarding claim 2, LG discloses a data processing method, comprising:
sending, by a first communication node to a second communication node, first control information (see LG, ¶ 0154: a network allocates 1 bit to DCI transmitted from a PCell per Scell or per SCell group to include dormancy),
wherein the first control information comprises information for indicating that a state of a secondary cell serving the second communication node converts (see LG, ¶ 0121: switching between a normal state and a dormant state through L1 signaling such as DCI; ¶ 0122: Special DCI for indicating a dormancy behavior of each SCell may be defined. For example, a UE may be instructed to monitor special DCI in a PCell, and a network may determine whether dormancy is set for each SCell through the special DCI; ¶ 0154: transition between a normal BWP and a dormant BWP is performed only by changing states without BWP indication, for example, when a network allocates 1 bit to DCI transmitted from a PCell per SCell or per SCell group to indicate only dormancy); and
wherein the first control information further comprises at least one of following: information for indicating that the first control information is not used for scheduling user data, information for determining a hybrid automatic repeat request-acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) information resource of the first control information, information for determining an interval timing from a slot where the first control information is located to a slot where HARQ-ACK of the first control information is located, information for determining an interval from a first subslot where the first control information is located to a second subslot where HARQ-ACK of the first control information is located, information for determining a location of HARQ-ACK of the first control information in a dynamic HARQ-ACK codebook, information of a priority of HARQ-ACK of the first control information, or information for determining a location of HARQ-ACK of the first control information in a semi-persistent HARQ-ACK codebook (see LG, ¶ 0152: only a command for a dormancy behavior is valid without uplink/downlink scheduling information…. a scheduling information field can be assumed as dummy/dummy data; ¶ 0145: PDSCH scheduling information for a D-BWP included in DCI indicating a dormancy behavior may be ignored; ¶ 0152: feedback resources may be indicated by the DCI carrying the dormancy command; ¶ 0166: ACK/NACK information information…may be fed back/transmitted together through a slot after K1 slots indicated by HARQ-ACK feedback timing through the DCI).
Regarding claim 8, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 2. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 2.
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, 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.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenovo.
Regarding claim 5, Lenovo discloses the data processing method according to claim 3, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the setting or re- interpreting of the part of bit fields in the format of DCI of the downlink scheduling data comprising at least one of following: i) re-interpreting a first bit field in the DCI; ii) re-interpreting a first bit field in the DCI as the interval timing from the slot where the first control information is located to the slot where the HARQ-ACK of the first control information is located; iii) re-interpreting a second bit field in the DCI as the interval timing from the subslot where the first control information is located to the subslot where the HARQ-ACK of the first control information is located; iv) re-interpreting a third bit in the DCI as a counter-DAI domain for determining the location of the HARQ-ACK codebook; v) re-interpreting a fourth bit field in the DCI as a PDSCH time domain resource allocation domain for determining the location of the HARQ-ACK of the first control information in the semi- persistent HARQ-ACK codebook; vi) re-interpreting a PUSCH time-frequency resource allocation domain in the DCI as a time-frequency resource domain for allocating the HARQ-ACK of the first control information ; or vii) re-interpreting one bit field in the DCI as for determining the priority of the HARQ- ACK of the first control information, wherein the one bit field does not comprise a first bit field, a second bit field, a fourth bit field and a PUSCH time-frequency resource allocation domain.
However, since Lenovo disclose reinterpreting existing DCI fields and requires the HARQ-ACK resource to be indicated by that DCI (see Lenovo, page 10, section 2.4.1: New DCI information…..should be based on reusing an existing DCI or C-RNTI that the UE is expected to monitor for DL scheduling, but with special values in one or more existing fields to allow reinterpreting other field(s) as containing the new information), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reuse suitable existing HARQ-ACK related fields of the DCI, such as the PUCCH resource indication or HARQ-ACK timing field, for implementing the HARQ-ACK indication using the existing DCI format without introducing additional overhead based on user design preference.
Regarding claim 11, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 5. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 12-13, and 18-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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.
US 2021/0203468 to Yi et al. discloses a wireless device receives configuration parameters indicating a non-dormant bandwidth part (BWP) for transitioning to a non-dormant state of a cell. The wireless device activates a first BWP as an active BWP in response to activation of the cell. The wireless device activates the non-dormant BWP as the active BWP in response to transitioning the cell from a dormant state to the non-dormant state. In an example, a gNB may transmit a downlink control information comprising a downlink assignment to a wireless device via one or more PDCCHs. The downlink assignment may comprise parameters indicating at least modulation and coding format; resource allocation; and/or HARQ information related to DL-SCH. In an example, a resource allocation may comprise parameters of resource block allocation; and/or slot allocation.
US 2020/0313833 to Yi et al. discloses a wireless device receives one or more radio resource control (RRC) messages comprising configuration parameters. The configuration parameters indicate a first secondary cell (SCell) group comprising one or more first cells and a second SCell group comprising a plurality of second cells. The wireless device activates, in a non-dormant state, the one or more first cells and the plurality of second cells. In response to receiving a downlink control information indicating transitioning the first SCell group to a dormant state, the wireless device transitions the one or more first cells to the dormant state and maintains the plurality of second cells in the non-dormant state.
US 2021/0120488 to Zhou et al. discloses a wireless device transitions a secondary cell to a dormant state. The transition is in response to receiving a downlink control information comprising a frequency domain resource assignment field being set to a predefined value.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHEED GIDADO whose telephone number is (571)270-7645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-5PM 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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 571-272-3139. 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.
/RASHEED GIDADO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights