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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 14, and 27-30 have been considered but are moot based on new ground of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments (“in a transmission time interval (TTI)”, “carrying a copy of a same downlink control information (DCI)”, “after an end of the repetition window”) of independent claims 1, 14, and 27-30.
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.
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) 1, 7, 10, 12, 14, 20, 23, and 27-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinier et al. (US 2020/0196343 A1, made of record as pertinent art in the OA of 12/3/2020, all citations are supported by US Provisional Application Nos. 62/585,937 and 62/519,585, respectfully filed 11/14/2017 and 6/14/2017) hereinafter Marinier, in view of Cheng et al. (US 2019/0020506 A1, made of record as pertinent art in the OA of 3/17/2025, all citations are supported by US Provisional Application No. 62/532,582, filed 7/14/2017) hereinafter Cheng.
Regarding claim 1, Marinier teaches a method for wireless communications by a network entity (base station (BS) 114 wireless communicating with wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) 102; para. 22-24 and Fig. 1A), the method comprising: transmitting, to a user equipment (UE), a plurality of physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) repetitions in a transmission time interval (TTI) (physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) transmitted from network to WTRU includes multiple downlink control information (DCIs) separated by frequency in same time period [transmission time interval (TTI)]; para. [63, 84-86] and Fig. 2, each DCI includes same contents / PDCCH repetition; para. 88 and Fig. 2), each PDCCH repetition carrying a copy of a same downlink control information (DCI) scheduling transmission of a plurality of physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) within a repetition window
(each DCI includes same contents / PDCCH repetition for physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) assignment; para. 88-89 and Fig. 2, multiple PDSCHs in same transport block (TB) [repetition window]; para. 92, WTRU reports one hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) acknowledgment (ACK) bit per TB regardless of number of PDSCH instances; para. [83, 105] and Fig. 3), wherein each PDCCH repetition is transmitted in a different frequency resource set within the TTI (each PDCCH received based on control resource set (CORESET) in same time period; par. [63, 84-87, 92] and Fig. 2); and receiving, from the UE after an end of the window, a single hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) acknowledgment (ACK) feedback indicating reception of the plurality of PDSCH (WTRU reports one HARQ ACK bit per TB [after end of window] regardless of number of PDSCH instances; para. [83, 102, 105, 127] and Fig. 3).
While Marinier discusses transmission profile related to repetition for PDSCH, data diversity, ultra-reliable services, and ultra-reliable data, Marinier does not explicitly disclose same plurality of physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) repetitions.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cheng teaches same plurality of physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) repetitions (PDSCH data 320A and PDSCH data 320B are repetitions of same data; para. 80 and Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Cheng to the system of Marinier, where Marinier’s reliable control signaling (para. 03) along with Cheng’s high reliability control and data channel transmissions (para. 05) improves user experience by enabling URLLC services having highly reliable control and data.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Marinier and Chen teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Marinier does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of PDCCH repetitions includes an information field to trigger the plurality of PDSCH repetitions.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cheng further teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of PDCCH repetitions includes an information field to trigger the plurality of PDSCH repetitions (DCI contains explicit bits [information field to trigger] for repetition PDSCH; para. 81).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Cheng to the modified system of Marinier and Cheng, where Marinier and Cheng’s modified system along with Cheng’s high reliability control and data channel transmissions (para. 05) improves user experience by enabling URLLC services having highly reliable control and data.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Marinier and Chen teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
While Marinier discloses DCIs including PDSCH assignment, Marinier does not explicitly disclose wherein each PDCCH repetition activates grant-free repetition of the plurality of PDSCH repetitions.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cheng further teaches wherein each PDCCH repetition activates grant-free repetition of the plurality of PDSCH repetitions (CORESET including DCI used for grant-free DL transmission [PDSCH repetition]; para. 85 and Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Cheng to the modified system of Marinier and Cheng, where Marinier and Cheng’s modified system along with Cheng’s high reliability control and data channel transmissions (para. 05) improves user experience by enabling URLLC services having highly reliable control and data.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Marinier and Chen teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Marinier further teaches further comprising monitoring for the single HARQ ACK feedback from the UE only after all the plurality of PDSCH repetitions are transmitted (redundant DCIs includes same allocated feedback / HARQ ACK [network device expects HARQ ACK as allocated]; para. [06, 89], WTRU transmits a single HARQ ACK for transport block irrespective of number of PDSCH [at least suggesting network device expects / monitors single HARQ ACK as allocated]; para. 105).
Regarding claim 14, Marinier teaches a method for wireless communications by a user equipment (UE) (wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) 102 wireless communicating with base station (BS) 114; para. 22-24 and Fig. 1A), the method comprising: monitoring different frequency resource sets, within a transmission time interval (TTI), for a plurality of physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) repetitions (physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) transmitted from network to WTRU [monitoring] includes multiple downlink control information (DCIs) separated by frequency in same time period [transmission time interval (TTI)]; para. [63, 84-86] and Fig. 2, each DCI includes same contents / PDCCH repetition; para. 88 and Fig. 2), each PDCCH repetition carrying a copy of a same downlink control information (DCI) scheduling transmission of a plurality of physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) within a repetition window (each DCI includes same contents / PDCCH repetition for physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) assignment; para. 88-89 and Fig. 2, multiple PDSCHs in same transport block (TB) [repetition window]; para. 92, WTRU reports one hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) acknowledgment (ACK) bit per TB regardless of number of PDSCH instances; para. [83, 105] and Fig. 3); and transmitting, after an end of the repetition window, a single hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) acknowledgment (ACK) feedback, after an end of the repetition window, indicating reception of the plurality of PDSCH (WTRU reports one HARQ ACK bit per TB [after end of window] regardless of number of received PDSCH instances; para. [83, 102, 105, 127] and Fig. 3).
While Marinier discusses transmission profile related to repetition for PDSCH, data diversity, ultra-reliable services, and ultra-reliable data, Marinier does not explicitly disclose a same plurality of physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) repetitions.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cheng teaches same plurality of physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) repetitions (PDSCH data 320A and PDSCH data 320B are repetitions of same data; para. 80 and Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Cheng to the system of Marinier, where Marinier’s reliable control signaling (para. 03) along with Cheng’s high reliability control and data channel transmissions (para. 05) improves user experience by enabling URLLC services having highly reliable control and data.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Marinier and Chen teaches the limitation of previous claim 14.
Marinier does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of PDCCH repetitions includes an information field to trigger the plurality of PDSCH repetitions.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cheng further teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of PDCCH repetitions includes an information field to trigger the plurality of PDSCH repetitions (DCI contains explicit bits [information field to trigger] for repetition PDSCH; para. 81).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Cheng to the modified system of Marinier and Cheng, where Marinier and Cheng’s modified system along with Cheng’s high reliability control and data channel transmissions (para. 05) improves user experience by enabling URLLC services having highly reliable control and data.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Marinier and Chen teaches the limitation of previous claim 14.
While Marinier discloses DCIs including PDSCH assignment, Marinier does not explicitly disclose wherein each PDCCH repetition activates grant-free repetition of the plurality of PDSCH repetitions.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cheng further teaches wherein each PDCCH repetition activates grant-free repetition of the plurality of PDSCH repetitions (CORESET including DCI used for grant-free DL transmission [PDSCH repetition]; para. 85 and Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Cheng to the modified system of Marinier and Cheng, where Marinier and Cheng’s modified system along with Cheng’s high reliability control and data channel transmissions (para. 05) improves user experience by enabling URLLC services having highly reliable control and data.
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Marinier and Chen teaches the limitation of previous claim 14.
Marinier further teaches detecting one of the plurality of PDCCH repetitions (WTRU receives DCI, discards subsequent / duplicate DCIs; para. 93); and monitoring the plurality of PDSCH based on the detected PDCCH repetition without detecting the remaining PDCCH repetitions (WTRU receives DCI including information for PDSCH 206 and PDSCH 208, discards subsequent / duplicate DCIs; para. 93 and Fig. 2).
While Marinier discusses repetition for PDSCH, data diversity, ultra-reliable services, and ultra-reliable data, Marinier does not explicitly disclose plurality of PDSCH repetitions.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cheng teaches plurality of PDSCH repetitions (PDSCH data 320A and PDSCH data 320B are repetitions of same data; para. 80 and Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Cheng to the modified system of Marinier and Cheng, where Marinier and Cheng’s modified system along with Cheng’s high reliability control and data channel transmissions (para. 05) improves user experience by enabling URLLC services having highly reliable control and data.
Regarding claim 27, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1, including an apparatus (base station (BS) 114; para. 22-24 and Fig. 1A: Marinier), means for transmitting (base station includes transceiver to transmit: para. 23: Marinier), means for receiving (base station includes transceiver to receive: para. 23: Marinier).
Regarding claim 28, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 14, including an apparatus (wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) 102; para. 22-24 and Fig. 1A: Marinier), means for monitoring (WTRU monitors; para. [87, 92]: Marinier), means for transmitting (WTRU including transceiver 120; para. 34-35 and Fig. 1B: Marinier).
Regarding claim 32, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 31.
Regarding claim 29, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1, including a transmitter (base station (BS) 114 includes transceiver to transmit; para. 22-24 and Fig. 1A: Marinier), a processor (implemented with a processor; para. 189: Marinier).
Regarding claim 30, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 14, including a receiver (wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) 102 including transceiver to receive; para. 34-38 and Fig. 1B, WTRU: Marinier) a processor (processor 118; para. 35: Marinier).
Regarding claim 33, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 31.
Claim(s) 4 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinier in view of Cheng, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2014/0098761 A1) hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Marinier and Chen teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
While the combination of Marinier and Chen discloses multiple aggregation levels including 2 and 8, the combination of Marinier and Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of PDCCH repetitions are transmitted using an aggregation level of at least 16 to accommodate at least two candidate PDCCHs.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches wherein the plurality of PDCCH repetitions are transmitted using an aggregation level of at least 16 (candidate PDCCH in repetition uses aggregation level of 16; para. 146-147) to accommodate at least two candidate PDCCHs (double the number of PDCCH resources [accommodate at least two within same interval] are available; para. 140).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Lee to the modified system of Marinier and Cheng, where Marinier and Cheng’s modified system along with Lee’s repetition (para. [04, 84, 105, 139, 145, 239]) improves user satisfaction by enabling improved coverage with coverage enhancement.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Marinier and Chen teaches the limitation of previous claim 14.
While the combination of Marinier and Chen discloses multiple aggregation levels including 2 and 8, the combination of Marinier and Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of PDCCH repetitions are transmitted using an aggregation level of at least 16.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches wherein the plurality of PDCCH repetitions are transmitted using an aggregation level of at least 16 (candidate PDCCH in repetition uses aggregation level of 16; para. 146-147).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Lee to the modified system of Marinier and Cheng, where Marinier and Cheng’s modified system along with Lee’s repetition (para. [04, 84, 105, 139, 145, 239]) improves user satisfaction by enabling improved coverage with coverage enhancement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kwak et al. (US 2020/0382247 A1) discloses a method for transmitting and receiving downlink data channel and device therefor
US Provisional Application Nos. 62/585,937 and 62/519,585 (Marinier) are included in the instant OA. US Provisional Application No. 62/532,582 (Cheng) having been made of record in the OA of 3/4/2026, is not included in the instant OA.
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 JOSE L PEREZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7348. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 am - 3 pm.
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/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
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.
/JOSE L PEREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights