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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs), submitted on 31 October 2024, 28 April 2025, and 10 April 2026, were filed after the mailing date of the patent application on 31 October 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings, received on 31 October 2024, are acceptable for examination.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Said claims recite “in case that the PUSCH transmission waveform is changed from the recent PUSCH transmission waveform:” and “in case that the PUSCH gap is equal to or higher than the first threshold and the PDCCH gap is equal to or higher than the second threshold” which are contingent limitations. Examiner reminds Applicant that "[the] broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met", See MPEP 2111.04 and See Ex Parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2015-007421 (Jan. 31, 2016). Here, the contingent limitations, (i.e. “in case that the PUSCH transmission waveform is changed from the recent PUSCH transmission waveform:” and “in case that the PUSCH gap is equal to or higher than the first threshold and the PDCCH gap is equal to or higher than the second threshold”) are not conditions that are required to occur, therefore the entire limitation is not required to occur. Given that the limitation is not required to occur, said limitation does not possess patentable weight. Examiner has, in the interest of compact prosecution, treated the limitation. With regard to the first contingent limitation, Examiner respectfully suggests amending “in case that the PUSCH transmission waveform is changed from the recent PUSCH transmission waveform:” to “in response to the PUSCH transmission waveformbeing changed from the recent PUSCH transmission waveform:”. With regard to the second contingent limitation, Examiner respectfully suggests amending “in case that the PUSCH gap is equal to or higher than the first threshold and the PDCCH gap is equal to or higher than the second threshold” to “in response to the PUSCH gapbeing equal to or higher than the first threshold and the PDCCH gap is equal to or higher than the second threshold”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 5 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Said claims recite “in case that the UE is available to process the first information” which is a contingent limitation. Examiner reminds Applicant that "[the] broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met", See MPEP 2111.04 and See Ex Parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2015-007421 (Jan. 31, 2016). Here, the contingent limitation, (i.e. “in case that the UE is available to process the first information”) is not a condition that is required to occur, therefore the entire limitation is not required to occur. Given that the limitation is not required to occur, said limitation does not possess patentable weight. Examiner has, in the interest of compact prosecution, treated the limitation. Examiner respectfully suggests amending “in case that the UE is available to process the first information” to “in response to the UEbeing available to process the first information”. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Xiao et al. (WO 2024073918 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Xiao”).
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 6, Xiao discloses a user equipment (UE) in a communication system, the UE comprising:
a transceiver (¶44-50 & Fig. 2, Xiao discloses a user equipment (UE) including a transceiver 210); and
a processor coupled with the transceiver and configured (¶44-50 & Fig. 2, Xiao discloses the UE further includes a processor 202 coupled to the transceiver 210) to:
receive, via a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH), downlink control information (DCI) (¶104-106 & Fig. 6 (602), Xiao discloses receiving a signaling, or downlink control information (DCI), indicating a waveform for a subsequent Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) transmission) scheduling a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission (¶105-106 & Fig. 6 (602), Xiao discloses that the signaling schedules a subsequent Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) transmission), wherein the DCI includes first information associated with a PUSCH transmission waveform (¶105-106 & Fig. 6 (602), Xiao discloses that the signaling includes information associated with a waveform for a subsequent Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) transmission);
determine, based on the first information, whether the PUSCH transmission waveform is a discrete Fourier transform spread orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (DFT-s-OFDM) or the PUSCH transmission waveform is changed from a recent PUSCH transmission waveform (¶107 & Fig. 6 (604) & ¶7, Xiao discloses determining, based on the indicated waveform of the signaling, whether the subsequent PUSCH transmission has a waveform that is either a discrete Fourier transform spread orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (DFT-s-OFDM) or Cyclic Prefix Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (CP-OFDM));
identify, based on a processing time parameter, a PUSCH preparation time (¶94-96 & ¶101-104 & Fig. 4, Xiao discloses identifying, based upon the gap indicated by the DCI, a PUSCH preparation time) for the PUSCH transmission waveform that is the DFT-s-OFDM or the PUSCH transmission waveform that is changed from the recent PUSCH transmission waveform (¶94-96 & ¶101-104 & Fig. 4 & Fig. 5, Xiao discloses that the PUSCH preparation time is an amount of time where the waveform of the subsequent PUSCH transmission is a minimum amount of time to prepare the PUSCH for transmission after expiry of the PUSCH preparation time or the gap indicated in the DCI should be greater than the PUSCH preparation time);
determine whether to transmit the PUSCH transmission based on the PUSCH preparation time (¶94-96 & ¶101-104 & Fig. 4 & Fig. 5, Xiao discloses determining to transmit the subsequent PUSCH transmission have a certain waveform is based upon whether the gap between the first symbol, or starting symbol, of PUSCH
transmission and the last symbol, or ending symbol, of the DCI is larger than the PUSCH preparation time); and
transmit the PUSCH transmission based on determining to transmit the PUSCH transmission (¶108 & Fig. 6 (606) & ¶7, Xiao discloses transmitting the subsequent PUSCH transmission having a certain waveform based upon the gap being larger than the PUSCH preparation time).
Regarding Claim 7, Xiao discloses the UE of claim 6.
Xiao further discloses wherein the DCI includes second information on the processing time parameter (¶94-96 & ¶101-104, Xiao further discloses that the signaling, or the DCI, indicates a gap between a starting symbol of the subsequent PUSCH transmission and the last symbol of the DCI).
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 16.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 17.
Regarding Claim 16, Xiao discloses a base station in a communication system, the base station comprising:
a transceiver (¶51-54 & Fig. 3, Xiao discloses a network equipment (NE) including a transceiver 310); and
a processor coupled with the transceiver and configured (¶51-54 & Fig. 3, Xiao discloses the NE further includes a processor 302 coupled to the transceiver 310) to:
determine whether a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission waveform is a discrete Fourier transform spread orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (DFT-s-OFDM) or the PUSCH transmission waveform is changed from a recent PUSCH transmission waveform (¶104-107 & Fig. 6 (602->604) & ¶7, Xiao discloses determining, for transmission to the UE in a downlink control information (DCI) or signaling, whether a subsequent PUSCH transmission has a waveform that is either a discrete Fourier transform spread orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (DFT-s-OFDM) or Cyclic Prefix Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (CP-OFDM)),
identify, based on a processing time parameter, a PUSCH preparation (¶94-96 & ¶101-104 & Fig. 4, Xiao discloses identifying, based upon the gap indicated by the DCI, a PUSCH preparation time) for the PUSCH transmission waveform that is the DFT-s-OFDM or the PUSCH transmission waveform that is changed from the recent PUSCH transmission waveform (¶94-96 & ¶101-104 & Fig. 4 & Fig. 5, Xiao discloses that the PUSCH preparation time is an amount of time where the waveform of the subsequent PUSCH transmission is a minimum amount of time to prepare the PUSCH for transmission after expiry of the PUSCH preparation time or the gap indicated in the DCI should be greater than the PUSCH preparation time),
transmit, via a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH), downlink control information (DCI) (¶104-106 & Fig. 6 (602), Xiao discloses transmitting a signaling, or downlink control information (DCI), indicating a waveform for a subsequent Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) transmission) scheduling the PUSCH transmission (¶105-106 & Fig. 6 (602), Xiao discloses that the signaling schedules a subsequent Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) transmission), wherein the DCI includes first information associated with the PUSCH transmission waveform (¶105-106 & Fig. 6 (602), Xiao discloses that the signaling includes information associated with a waveform for a subsequent Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) transmission), and
receive the PUSCH transmission associated with the PUSCH preparation time (¶108 & Fig. 6 (606) & ¶7, Xiao discloses transmitting the subsequent PUSCH transmission having a certain waveform based upon the gap being larger than the PUSCH preparation time).
Regarding Claim 17, Xiao discloses the base station of claim 16.
Xiao further discloses wherein the DCI includes second information on the processing time parameter (¶94-96 & ¶101-104, Xiao further discloses that the signaling, or the DCI, indicates a gap between a starting symbol of the subsequent PUSCH transmission and the last symbol of the DCI).
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 3, 8, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao in view of Ma et al. (US 20230319708 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Ma”).
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 8, Xiao discloses the UE of claim 6.
However, Xiao does not disclose wherein a UE capability for the processing time parameter is transmitted and the PUSCH transmission is scheduled based on the UE capability for the processing time parameter.
Ma, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein a UE capability for the processing time parameter is transmitted (¶502 & Fig. 5 (500), Ma discloses information associated with a UE capability is transmitted to a wireless network node) and the PUSCH transmission is scheduled based on the UE capability for the processing time parameter (¶502 & Fig. 5 (502) & ¶102 & Fig. 1B, Ma discloses that the PUSCH is scheduled based upon a PUSCH preparation procedure time N2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xiao by requiring that a UE capability for the processing time parameter is transmitted and the PUSCH transmission is scheduled based on the UE capability for the processing time parameter as taught by Ma because the user experience is improved by considering the duration of time for decoding processing of transmissions (Ma, ¶3).
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 18.
Regarding Claim 18, Xiao discloses the base station of claim 16.
However, Xiao does not disclose wherein a user equipment (UE) capability for the processing time parameter is received and the PUSCH transmission is scheduled based on the UE capability for the processing time parameter.
Ma, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein a user equipment (UE) capability for the processing time parameter is received (¶502 & Fig. 5 (500), Ma discloses information associated with a UE capability is transmitted to a wireless network node) and the PUSCH transmission is scheduled based on the UE capability for the processing time parameter (¶502 & Fig. 5 (502) & ¶102 & Fig. 1B, Ma discloses that the PUSCH is scheduled based upon a PUSCH preparation procedure time N2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xiao by requiring that a user equipment (UE) capability for the processing time parameter is received and the PUSCH transmission is scheduled based on the UE capability for the processing time parameter as taught by Ma because the user experience is improved by considering the duration of time for decoding processing of transmissions (Ma, ¶3).
Claims 5, 10, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao in view of Matsumura et al. (US 20250089065 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Matsumura”).
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 10, Xiao discloses the UE of claim 6.
However, Xiao does not disclose wherein the processor is further configured to transmit a UE capability indicating whether the UE is available to process the first information, and wherein the DCI includes the first information in case that the UE is available to process the first information.
Matsumura, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processor is further configured to transmit a UE capability indicating whether the UE is available to process the first information (¶142-148, Matsumura discloses transmitting a user equipment (UE) capability indicating whether the UE is capable of supporting dynamic waveform switching), and wherein the DCI includes the first information in case that the UE is available to process the first information (¶142-148, Matsumura discloses the downlink control information (DCI) includes information for indicating/configuring at least one of the respective processes associated with switching waveforms).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xiao by the processor is further configured to transmit a UE capability indicating whether the UE is available to process the first information where the DCI includes the first information in case that the UE is available to process the first information as taught by Matsumura because dynamic waveform switching is improved by deterring signaling overhead increase and communication throughput decrease (Matsumura, ¶6).
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 20.
Regarding Claim 20, Xiao discloses the base station of claim 16.
However, Xiao does not disclose wherein the processor is further configured to receive a UE capability indicating whether a UE is available to process the first information, and wherein the DCI includes the first information in case that the UE is available to process the first information.
Shin, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processor is further configured to receive a UE capability indicating whether a UE is available to process the first information ¶142-148, Matsumura discloses receiving a user equipment (UE) capability indicating whether the UE is capable of supporting dynamic waveform switching), and wherein the DCI includes the first information in case that the UE is available to process the first information (¶142-148, Matsumura discloses the downlink control information (DCI) includes information for indicating/configuring at least one of the respective processes associated with switching waveforms).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xiao by requiring that the processor is further configured to receive a UE capability indicating whether a UE is available to process the first information where the DCI includes the first information in case that the UE is available to process the first information as taught by Matsumura because dynamic waveform switching is improved by deterring signaling overhead increase and communication throughput decrease (Matsumura, ¶6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 9, 14, and 19 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.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC NOWLIN whose telephone number is (313)446-6544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00PM-10:00PM.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/ERIC NOWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights