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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4 – 5, 9, 11, 15 – 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 recites of an embodiment, where the transmission periodicity of the reference signal is determined. Claim 1 recites of a different embodiment, where the validity of the reference signal is determined. In reviewing Applicants disclosure, the specification does not describe of an embodiment that includes both methods as recited in claims 1 and 4. Therefore, the amendment to claim 4 after the filing of the original disclosure constitutes new matter.
Claim 15 recites of an embodiment, where the transmission periodicity of the reference signal is determined. Claim 14 recites of a different embodiment, where the validity of the PDSCH is determined. In reviewing Applicants disclosure, the specification does not describe of an embodiment that includes both methods as recited in claims 14 and 15. Therefore, the amendment to claim 15 after the filing of the original disclosure constitutes new matter.
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
Claim 7 recites of “wherein determining validity of the reference signal further comprises: in response to not receiving a wake-up indication and being configured with a first high-level parameter with a value being a first value”. It is not clear what is being configured with a first high parameter. The claim is vague and indefinite.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 12 – 13 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Medles et al (US 2020/0084714).
Re claim 1, Medles teaches of a method for signal processing, performed by a terminal device and comprising: determining validity of a reference signal (CSI-RS, Fig.2), wherein determining validity of the reference signal comprises: determining that a reference signal in an active time is valid (valid when inside extended on-duration, Fig.2); and determining that a reference signal outside the active time is invalid (invalid when outside extended on-duration, Fig.2) (Paragraphs 0031 – 0032).
Re claim 8, Medles teaches of wherein determining validity of the reference signal further comprises: determining that a reference signal in a first time window is valid (Paragraphs 0031 – 0032); and determining that a reference signal outside the first time window is invalid (Paragraphs 0031 – 0032).
Re claim 12, Medles teaches of wherein the reference signal is a synchronization signal/physical broadcast channel block (SSB) (SSB, Paragraph 0033), a channel state information-reference signal (CSI-RS) (CSI-RS, Paragraphs 0031 – 0032), or a positioning reference signal (PRS).
Re claim 13, Medles teaches of wherein the CSI-RS comprises a tracking reference signal (TRS) (TRS, Paragraph 0033).
Re claim 22, Medles teaches of a chip, comprising a processor, wherein the processor (Fig.6) is configured to execute: determining validity of a reference signal, comprising determining that a reference signal in an active time is valid; and determining that a reference signal outside the active time is invalid (see claim 1).
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.
Claims 2 and 6 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medles in view of Zhang et al (US 2022/0053597).
Re claim 2, Medles teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as well as wherein determining validity of the reference signal further comprises: determining that a reference signal after a first time interval is valid (DRX On duration, as shown in Fig.2), and a duration of the first time interval is a preset duration (Paragraph 0032). However, Medles does not specifically mention of wherein a start time of the first time interval is a start-up time of a drx-on duration timer.
Zhang teaches of wherein a start time of the first time interval is a start-up time of a drx-on duration timer (Figures 2 – 3 and Paragraph 0106), and a duration of the first time interval is a preset duration (Paragraphs 0116 – 0117).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a start time of the first time interval be a start-up time of a drx-on duration timer so as to configure the DRX cycle.
Re claim 6, Medles teaches all the limitations of claim 1 except of wherein determining validity of the reference signal further comprises: in response to receiving a wake-up indication indicating not to wake up, determining that a reference signal in a duration indicated by a drx-on duration timer is valid.
Zhang teaches of in response to receiving a wake-up indication indicating not to wake up (Paragraphs 0051 and Fig.5), determining that a reference signal in a duration indicated by a drx-on duration timer (first time period, Fig.5) is valid (Paragraph 0031).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined that a reference signal in a duration indicated by a drx-on duration timer is valid, in response to receiving a wake-up indication indicating not to wake up so as ensure accuracy of RRM measurements.
Re claim 7, Medles teaches all the limitations of claim 1 except of wherein determining validity of the reference signal further comprises: in response to not receiving a wake-up indication and being configured with a first high-level parameter with a value being a first value, determining that a reference signal in a duration indicated by a drx-on duration timer is valid.
Zhang teaches of wherein determining validity of the reference signal further comprises: in response to not receiving a wake-up indication (receiving a sleep signal, Paragraph 0130) and being configured with a first high-level parameter with a value being a first value (Paragraph 0134), determining that a reference signal in a duration indicated by a drx-on duration timer (first time period, Fig.5 and Paragraph 0151) is valid (Paragraph 0031).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined that a reference signal in a duration indicated by a drx-on duration timer is valid in response to not receiving a wake-up indication and being configured with a first high-level parameter with a value being a first value, so as ensure accuracy of RRM measurements.
Claims 4 – 5, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medles in view of Wu et al (US 2025/0203649).
Re claim 4, Medles teaches all the limitations of claim 1 except of wherein the method further comprises: determining a transmission periodicity of the reference signal.
Wu teaches of determining a transmission periodicity of the reference signal (#S101, Fig.4, Paragraphs 0010 – 0011, 0112 and 0117, Abstract and Fig.6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined a transmission periodicity of the reference signal so as to reduce a proportion of periodic signals, thereby reducing power consumption of a communication base station.
Re claim 5, Medles and Wu teaches all the limitations of claim 4, as well as Wu teaches of wherein determining the transmission periodicity of the reference signal comprises: determining that a transmission periodicity of a reference signal in an active time is a first period; and determining that a transmission periodicity of a reference signal outside the active time is a second period (Non-active time of DTX, Fig.14) (receiving downlink broadcast signaling based on a third period, where the third period is greater than a period in which the UE receives the downlink broadcast signaling during the Active time of DTX of the base station, Paragraph 0029)(Paragraphs 0010 – 0011, 0112 and 0117).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined a transmission periodicity of the reference signal in an active period and in inactive period so as to reduce a proportion of periodic signals, thereby reducing power consumption of a communication base station.
Re claim 9, Medles and Wu teaches all the limitations of claim 4, as well as Wu teaches of wherein determining the transmission periodicity of the reference signal comprises: determining that a transmission periodicity of a reference signal in a first time window is a first period; and determining that a transmission periodicity of a reference signal outside the first time window is a second period (receiving downlink broadcast signaling based on a third period, where the third period is greater than a period in which the UE receives the downlink broadcast signaling during the Active time of DTX of the base station, Paragraph 0029 and Figures 6 and 14)(Paragraphs 0010 – 0011, 0112 and 0117).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined a transmission periodicity of the reference signal in a first, second and third periods so as to reduce a proportion of periodic signals, thereby reducing power consumption of a communication base station.
Re claim 11, Medles teaches of wherein the reference signal is a periodic reference signal (Paragraphs 0029 – 0032).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medles in view of Islam et al (US 2022/0124622).
Re claim 10, Medles teaches all the limitations of claim 8 except of wherein a period and an offset of the first time window are indicated by a second high-level parameter.
Islam teaches of wherein a period and an offset of the first time window are indicated by a second high-level parameter (Paragraph 0050).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a period and an offset of the first time window are indicated by a second high-level parameter for improved performance and maintaining transmission stability.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) /(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wu et al (US 2021/0377857) (Wu(1)).
Re claim 14, Wu(1) teaches of a method for channel processing, performed by a terminal device and comprising: determining validity of a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH), wherein determining validity of the PDSCH comprises: determining that a PDSCH in an active time is valid; and determining that a PDSCH outside the active time is invalid (the UE 120 may monitor a PDSCH during the active time, and may refrain from monitoring the PDSCH during the inactive time, Paragraph 0063 and Fig.15).
Re claim 17, Wu(1) teaches of wherein determining validity of the PDSCH further comprises: determining that a PDSCH in a second time window is valid; and determining that a PDSCH outside the second time window is invalid (the UE 120 may monitor a PDSCH during the active time, and may refrain from monitoring the PDSCH during the inactive time, Paragraph 0063 and multiple active and inactive time windows, Fig.15).
Re claim 20, Wu(1) teaches of wherein the PDSCH is a semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) PDSCH (Paragraph 0058).
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.
Claims 15 – 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu(1) in view of Wu.
Re claim 15, Wu(1) teaches all the limitations of claim 14, except of wherein the method further comprises: determining a transmission periodicity of the PDSCH.
Wu teaches of determining a transmission periodicity of the PDSCH (#S101, Fig.4, Paragraphs 0010 – 0011, 0112 and 0117, Abstract and Fig.6 and SPS PDSCH, Paragraphs 0133 and 0219).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined a transmission periodicity of the PDSCH so as to reduce a proportion of periodic signals, thereby reducing power consumption of a communication base station.
Re claim 16, Wu(1) and Wu teaches all the limitations of claim 15, as well as Wu teaches of wherein determining the transmission periodicity of the PDSCH comprises: determining that a transmission periodicity of a PDSCH in an active time is a third period; and determining that a transmission periodicity of a PDSCH outside the active time is a fourth period. (Non-active time of DTX, Fig.14) (receiving downlink broadcast signaling based on a third period, where the third period is greater than a period in which the UE receives the downlink broadcast signaling during the Active time of DTX of the base station, Paragraph 0029) (Paragraphs 0010 – 0011, 0112 and 0117, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined a transmission periodicity of the PDSCH in an active period and in inactive period so as to reduce a proportion of periodic signals, thereby reducing power consumption of a communication base station.
Re claim 18, Wu(1) and Wu teaches all the limitations of claim 15, as well as Wu teaches of Wu teaches of wherein determining the transmission periodicity of the PDSCH comprises: determining that a transmission periodicity of a PDSCH in a second time window is a third period; and determining that a transmission periodicity of a PDSCH outside the second time window is a fourth period (receiving downlink broadcast signaling based on a third period, where the third period is greater than a period in which the UE receives the downlink broadcast signaling during the Active time of DTX of the base station, Paragraph 0029 and Figures 6 and 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined a transmission periodicity of the PDSCH in a first, second and third periods so as to reduce a proportion of periodic signals, thereby reducing power consumption of a communication base station.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu(1) in view of Kim et al (US 2024/0422590).
Re claim 19, Wu(1) teaches all the limitations of claim 17 except of wherein a period and an offset of the second time window are indicated by a third high-level parameter.
Kim teaches of a period and an offset of the second time window are indicated by a third high-level parameter (Paragraph 0316).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a period and an offset of the second time window are indicated by a third high-level parameter so as to configure the DRX function.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARISTOCRATIS FOTAKIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at (571) 272-3044. 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.
/ARISTOCRATIS FOTAKIS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights