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
In view of the Pre-Brief Appeal filed on 11/05/2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing at the end of this action.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/05/2025 in the Pre-Appeal Brief Conference Request have been fully considered but they are partially persuasive.
Pages 3-4 of applicant’s arguments includes “Applicant notes that Xu is not cited, and appears to be a new ground of rejection. Further, a citation, publication or patent number, for Xu is not provided in the AA, and it unclear to what prior art reference is being relied upon.” Applicant’s arguments is persuasive.
In a review of the advisory action of 10/9/2025, identification of the reference Xu (Xu et al. US 2015/0085796 A1) used in the explanation of HARQ had been inadvertently omitted and thus, the examiner’s stance may have been unclear with regards to one HARQ process and one ACK. Accordingly, prosecution is reopened.
In light of omission of the Xu reference, further explanation with Xu has been provided, yet another reference (Chen et al. [US 2014/0044056 A1]) has been included as support for examiner’s stance of a single ACK for a single HARQ process, and in addition to the previous rejections, alternative rejections have been provided so that the applicant has a clear understanding.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 (and 14, 27-30):
A) on page 2 include “Ericsson [R1-1720534] is entirely silent and fails to explicitly teach providing a single HARQ ACK feedback to indicate reception of the plurality of PDSCH repetitions as recited in claim 1”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding A) the rejection is a 35 U.S.C. §103 obvious rejection; the examiner notes MPEP 2141 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103, III. RATIONALES TO SUPPORT REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 “The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by . . . overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents. . . . . In many fields it may be that there is little discussion of obvious techniques or combinations, and it often may be the case that market demand, rather than scientific literature, will drive design trends. KSR, 550 U.S. at 419, 82 USPQ2d at 1396”, “The "mere existence of differences between the prior art and an invention does not establish the invention’s nonobviousness." Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976)” [emphasis added]. Further to the explanations provided in the OA of 7/16/2025 and the advisory action of 10/9/2025, applicant’s argument that the limitation “a single HARQ ACK feedback to indicate reception of the plurality of PDSCH repetitions” is not explicitly disclosed is not persuasive in view of a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection. Applicant’s argument appears to be based on a lack of an explicit/verbatim disclosure and within a vacuum devoid of any context. As can be appreciated, Ericsson also discusses issues with HARQ, reliability, and latency (pages [1-4, 6-7]), similar to applicant’s repetition and “no time for HARQ-based retransmission” (para. 97); thus, while the description of the issue is not explicit/verbatim/identical, the issues identified are corresponding. As Ericsson has identified issues with HARQ, reliability, and latency, it is clear Ericsson’s disclosure pertains to solving the identified issues, which includes PDSCH repetitions use same [single] hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process as cited. It is not persuasive for applicant to argue that since a single HARQ-ACK is not explicitly disclosed Ericsson does not disclose or suggest a single HARQ-ACK. Applicant’s own argument on page 3 clearly supports a suggestion with “Thus, in the case of Ericsson, HARQ ACK feedback could be provided after each PDSCH repetition” [emphasis added] indicating applicant’s understanding Ericsson does not necessarily require HARQ ACK after “each PDSCH repetition” nor can only be HARQ ACK after “each PDSCH repetition”, where an obvious alternative is a single HARQ-ACK after all PDSCH repetitions using the same HARQ process, particularly in view of Ericsson’s description on page 2 of a delay increase when waiting for HARQ feedback for every retransmission. The examiner again asserts Ericsson discloses or at least suggests a HARQ process uses one ACK for acknowledgement, and as support to assist with applicant’s understanding of Ericsson’s disclosure:
Xu et al. [US 2015/0085796 A1, inadvertently omitted in the advisory action of 10/9/2025] in para. 53 describes “A UE transmits the encoded data block, and waits for ACK/NACK feedback” indicating a device transmits data and waits for either ACK or NACK when using HARQ; “If ACK is received, indicating that the eNB has decoded the data block successfully, the UE stops the retransmission process” clearly describing a HARQ process includes one ACK and that multiple ACKs are not typically expected;
Chen et al. (US 2014/0044056 A1, hereinafter Chen056) in para. 53 describes “the same hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process number may be used in each of the bundled subframe” indicating same/single HARQ process used for multiple data such as in repetition; “A bundle may be treated as a single resource (e.g., a single grant and a single HARQ acknowledgement (ACK) may be used for each bundle)” clearly describing one HARQ ACK for one HARQ process for multiple data such as in repetition, and as at least suggested in Ericsson.
Accordingly, while Ericsson does not explicitly recite “a single HARQ ACK feedback to indicate reception of the plurality of PDSCH repetitions”, Ericsson at least suggests “a single HARQ ACK feedback to indicate reception of the plurality of PDSCH repetitions” as cited in the OA of 7/16/2025 on page 5 (PDSCH repetitions use same [single] hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process; page 3 section 2.1.1 Support of data repetition, HARQ acknowledgment (ACK) feedback for DL transmission; page 6 section 2.5.1 Reliability) where a single HARQ process includes a single HARQ-ACK for multiple data, the multiple data corresponding to PDSCH repetition, the “DL transmission” of Ericsson corresponding to the PDSCH repetition, and HARQ-ACK explicitly being used for the downlink [PDSCH] as opposed to some unknown HARQ technique.
B) on page 3 include “the FOA appears to consider that the disclosure of a same/single HARQ process inherently teaches use of a single HARQ ACK feedback” [emphasis by applicant]. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding B) the examiner notes the rejection is a 35 U.S.C. §103 obvious rejection with Ericsson in view of Panteleev (US 2019/0182807 A1) as indicated on pages 4-5 of the OA and thus, does not rely on inherency. As above, the examiner notes MPEP 2141 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103, III. RATIONALES TO SUPPORT REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 “The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by . . . overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents. . . . . In many fields it may be that there is little discussion of obvious techniques or combinations, and it often may be the case that market demand, rather than scientific literature, will drive design trends. KSR, 550 U.S. at 419, 82 USPQ2d at 1396”, “The "mere existence of differences between the prior art and an invention does not establish the invention’s nonobviousness." The above response to argument A) is similarly applicable in that while Ericsson does not explicitly recite “a single HARQ ACK feedback to indicate reception of the plurality of PDSCH repetitions”, Ericsson at least suggests “a single HARQ ACK feedback to indicate reception of the plurality of PDSCH repetitions” as cited in the OA of 7/16/2025 on page 5 (PDSCH repetitions use same [single] hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process; page 3 section 2.1.1 Support of data repetition, HARQ acknowledgment (ACK) feedback for DL transmission; page 6 section 2.5.1 Reliability) as a single HARQ process includes a single HARQ-ACK for multiple data, the multiple data corresponding to PDSCH repetition, and the “DL transmission” of Ericsson corresponding to the PDSCH repetition.
C) on page 3 include “Ericsson fails to explicitly or inherently teach providing a single HARQ-ACK feedback to indicate reception of the plurality of PDSCH repetitions as recited in claim 1” [emphasis by applicant]. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding C) clearly, the rejection is a 35 U.S.C. §103 obvious rejection and thus, a reference is not required to “explicitly or inherently teach” the claimed limitation. Applicant’s own argument on page 3 contradicts applicant’s arguments regarding “Ericsson fails to explicitly or inherently” teach the claimed limitation as applicant own response admits “the references must explicitly or inherently teach, or suggest, the claimed limitation” [emphasis added], and an “explicit/inherit” teaching is not required in a 35 U.S.C. §103 obvious rejection. As outlined above in the response to argument A), Ericsson at least suggests “a single HARQ ACK feedback to indicate reception of the plurality of PDSCH repetitions” as cited in the OA of 7/16/2025 on page 5 (PDSCH repetitions use same [single] hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process; page 3 section 2.1.1 Support of data repetition, HARQ acknowledgment (ACK) feedback for DL transmission; page 6 section 2.5.1 Reliability) as a single HARQ process includes a single HARQ-ACK for multiple data, the multiple data corresponding to PDSCH repetition, and the “DL transmission” of Ericsson corresponding to the PDSCH repetition.
D) on pages 3-4 include “the portion of Xu cited in the AA fails to teach or suggest a single ACK for a single HARQ process”, highlights separate portions as those highlighted in the advisory action of 10/9/2025, and further argues “the cited portion of Xu explicitly teaches the UE transmits a data block and then waits for ACK/NACK feedback before retransmitting a RV of the data block. Accordingly, Xu clearly teaches ACK/NACK feedback is transmitted for each transmission of the data block. Xu fails to teach or suggest providing a single HARQ-ACK feedback to indicate reception of the plurality of PDSCH repetitions as recited in claim 1” [emphasis by applicant]. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding D) as indicated on pages 3-4 of the advisory action, Xu has been shown as additional support for explaining to applicant how HARQ is commonly understood. In a review of applicant’s response of 9/12/2025, applicant’s arguments confuse the issue at hand (examiner’s assertion of one HARQ process and one ACK) with applicant’s arguments regarding multiple HARQ processes and ACK/NACK feedback is transmitted for each transmission of the data block. It is further noted claim language indicates HARQ-ACK, not “single HARQ-ACK/NACK” and applicant’s own response summarizing cited Wikipedia in the response filed 9/12/2025 on page 10 supports the examiner’s stance with “while a HARQ process waits for an ACK” clearly indicating applicant’s understanding of one HARQ ACK is typically expected for one HARQ process as asserted by the examiner. Similarly, applicant’s arguments confuse the issue at hand (examiner’s assertion of one HARQ process and one ACK) with applicant’s arguments regarding retransmission of RV using HARQ ACK/NACK. Xu, as outlined above in the response to argument A), and also Chen056 support the examiner’s assertion of a HARQ process uses one ACK for acknowledgement and thus, cited prior art Ericsson at least suggests “a single HARQ ACK feedback to indicate reception of the plurality of PDSCH repetitions” as cited in the OA of 7/16/2025 on page 5 (PDSCH repetitions use same [single] hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process; page 3 section 2.1.1 Support of data repetition, HARQ acknowledgment (ACK) feedback for DL transmission; page 6 section 2.5.1 Reliability) as a single HARQ process includes a single HARQ-ACK for multiple data, the multiple data corresponding to PDSCH repetition, and the “DL transmission” of Ericsson corresponding to the PDSCH repetition.
Accordingly, in light of the above, the examiner finds applicant’s arguments non-persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding remaining claims on pages 4-5 rely on the above arguments and thus, the examiner respectfully disagrees and correspondingly finds applicant’s arguments non-persuasive.
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, 9-10, 12, 14, 22-23, and 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericsson (R1-1720534, URLLC design for LTE, made of record in the IDS filed 2/18/2025) hereinafter Ericsson in view of Panteleev et al. (US 2019/0182807 A1, all citations are supported by US Provisional Application No. 62/710,411, filed 2/16/2018) hereinafter Panteleev.
Regarding claim 1, Ericsson teaches a method for wireless communications by a network entity (eNB in network; page 3 section 2.1.1 Support of data repetition), the method comprising: transmitting, to a user equipment (UE), a plurality of physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) repetitions (eNB transmits consecutively in time physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) [repetitions to UE]; page 3 section 2.1.1 Support of data repetition), each PDCCH repetition scheduling transmission of at least one physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) repetition of a plurality of PDSCH repetitions (PDCCH for downlink (DL)-assignment, physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) for DL-data, new data indicator (NDI) not toggled [repetition of PDSCH]; page 3 section 2.1.1 Support of data repetition) within a repetition window (repetition based on transport block [window] repetition; page 2 Proposal 1, NDI not toggled [repetition of PDSCH] for same HARQ process [repetition window]; page 3 section 2.1.1 Support of data repetition), and receiving, from the UE, a single hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) acknowledgment (ACK) feedback indicating reception of the plurality of PDSCH repetitions (PDSCH repetitions use same [single] hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process [one same single HARQ process expecting one ACK when ACK is used, where HARQ uses ACK as acknowledgement, or non-reception of NACK as acknowledgement]; page 3 section 2.1.1 Support of data repetition, HARQ acknowledgment (ACK) feedback for DL transmission [HARQ-ACK for downlink as opposed to non-reception of NACK, downlink being PDSCH]; page 6 section 2.5.1 Reliability).
Ericsson does not explicitly disclose wherein each PDCCH repetition is transmitted in a different frequency resource set.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Panteleev teaches wherein each PDCCH repetition is transmitted in a different frequency resource set (PDCCH repetitions on control resource set (CORESET) on different frequency resources; para. 41).
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 Panteleev to the system of Ericsson, where Ericsson’s repetition techniques to increase reliability (page 1 section 1 Introduction) along with Panteleev’s improved reliability under latency constraints (para. 34) improves user experience by enabling services requiring reliability and low latency.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Ericsson and Panteleev teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Ericsson further teaches wherein each PDCCH repetition indicates the same at least one PDSCH repetition (consecutive PDCCH for DL-assignment, PDSCH for DL-data, NDI not toggled [repetition of PDSCH]; page 3 section 2.1.1 Support of data repetition) within the repetition window (NDI not toggled [repetition of PDSCH] for same HARQ process [repetition window]; page 3 section 2.1.1 Support of data repetition).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Ericsson and Panteleev teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Panteleev further teaches wherein each PDCCH repetition activates a grant-free repetition-based transmission (scheduling based on PDCCH, PDCCH triggers periodic (grant-free) or aperiodic transmission/reception; para. 24, PDCCH repetitions; para. 41).
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 Panteleev to the modified system of Ericsson and Panteleev, where Ericsson and Panteleev’s modified system along with Panteleev’s improved reliability under latency constraints (para. 34) improves user experience by enabling services requiring reliability and low latency.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Ericsson and Panteleev teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Panteleev further teaches monitoring for the single HARQ ACK feedback from the UE only after all the plurality of PDSCH repetitions are transmitted (PDCCH repetitions; para. 41, HARQ feedback at PDSCH-end; para. 85).
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 Panteleev to the modified system of Ericsson and Panteleev, where Ericsson and Panteleev’s modified system along with Panteleev’s improved reliability under latency constraints (para. 34) improves user experience by enabling services requiring reliability and low latency.
Regarding claim 14, Ericsson teaches a method for wireless communications by a user equipment (UE) (eNB transmits consecutively in time physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) [repetitions to UE]; page 3 section 2.1.1 Support of data repetition), the method comprising: each PDCCH repetition scheduling transmission of at least one physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) repetition of a plurality of PDSCH repetitions (PDCCH for downlink (DL)-assignment, physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) for DL-data, new data indicator (NDI) not toggled [repetition of PDSCH]; page 3 section 2.1.1 Support of data repetition) within a repetition window (repetition based on transport block [window] repetition; page 2 Proposal 1, NDI not toggled [repetition of PDSCH] for same HARQ process [repetition window]; page 3 section 2.1.1 Support of data repetition); and transmitting a single hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) acknowledgment (ACK) feedback indicating reception of the plurality of PDSCH repetitions (PDSCH repetitions use same [single] hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process [one same single HARQ process expecting one ACK when ACK is used, where HARQ uses ACK as acknowledgement, or non-reception of NACK as acknowledgement]; page 3 section 2.1.1 Support of data repetition, HARQ acknowledgment (ACK) feedback for DL transmission [HARQ-ACK for downlink as opposed to non-reception of NACK, downlink being PDSCH]; page 6 section 2.5.1 Reliability).
Ericsson does not explicitly disclose monitoring different frequency resource sets for a plurality of physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) repetitions.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Panteleev teaches monitoring different frequency resource sets for a plurality of physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) repetitions (monitoring PDCCH repetitions on control resource set (CORESET) on different frequency resources; para. [37, 41]).
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 Panteleev to the system of Ericsson, where Ericsson’s repetition techniques to increase reliability (page 1 section 1 Introduction) along with Panteleev’s improved reliability under latency constraints (para. 34) improves user experience by enabling services requiring reliability and low latency.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Ericsson and Panteleev teaches the limitation of previous claim 14.
Ericsson further teaches wherein each PDCCH repetition indicates the same at least one PDSCH repetition (consecutive PDCCH for DL-assignment, PDSCH for DL-data, NDI not toggled [repetition of PDSCH]; page 3 section 2.1.1 Support of data repetition) within the repetition window (NDI not toggled [repetition of PDSCH] for same HARQ process [repetition window]; page 3 section 2.1.1 Support of data repetition).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Ericsson and Panteleev teaches the limitation of previous claim 14.
Panteleev further teaches wherein each PDCCH repetition activates a grant-free repetition-based transmission (scheduling based on PDCCH, PDCCH triggers periodic (grant-free) or aperiodic transmission/reception; para. 24, PDCCH repetitions; para. 41).
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 Panteleev to the modified system of Ericsson and Panteleev, where Ericsson and Panteleev’s modified system along with Panteleev’s improved reliability under latency constraints (para. 34) improves user experience by enabling services requiring reliability and low latency.
Regarding claim 27, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1, including an apparatus (eNB in network; page 3 section 2.1.1 Support of data repetition: Ericsson), means for transmitting (eNB transmits: page 3 section 2.1.1 Support of data repetition: Ericsson), means for receiving (eNB transmits UL grant; page 3 section 2.1.1 Support of data repetition, UL reception; pages 5-6 section 2.4 Uplink Data: Ericsson).
Regarding claim 28, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 14, including an apparatus (eNB transmits physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) [repetitions to UE], UE; page 3 section 2.1.1 Support of data repetition: Ericsson), means for monitoring (eNB transmits PDCCH/PDSCH [UE monitoring]; page 3 section 2.1.1 Support of data repetition: Ericsson), means for transmitting (eNB transmits UL grant; page 3 section 2.1.1 Support of data repetition, UL transmission by UE; pages 5-6 section 2.4 Uplink Data: Ericsson).
Regarding claim 29, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1, including a transmitter (eNB transmits: page 3 section 2.1.1 Support of data repetition: Ericsson), a processor (performed in hardware, software; para. 213: Panteleev).
Regarding claim 30, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 14, including a receiver (eNB transmits PDCCH/PDSCH [UE monitoring]; page 3 section 2.1.1 Support of data repetition: Ericsson) a processor (performed in hardware, software; para. 213: Panteleev).
Claim(s) 4, 7, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericsson in view of Panteleev, and further in view of Bagheri et al. (US 2019/0053081 A1, all citations are supported by US Provisional Application No. 62/544,743, filed 8/11/2017) hereinafter Bagheri.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ericsson and Panteleev teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Ericsson 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, Panteleev further teaches wherein the plurality of PDCCH repetitions are transmitted using an aggregation level of at least 16 (PDCCH repetition using aggregation level of 16 or more; para. 44-45).
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 Panteleev to the modified system of Ericsson and Panteleev, where Ericsson and Panteleev’s modified system along with Panteleev’s improved reliability under latency constraints (para. 34) improves user experience by enabling services requiring reliability and low latency.
The combination of Ericsson and Panteleev does not explicitly disclose to accommodate at least two candidate PDCCHs at the aggregation level within a single transmission time interval (TTI).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bagheri teaches to accommodate at least two candidate PDCCHs at the aggregation level within a single transmission time interval (TTI) (decoding candidates (at least two candidate PDCCHs) at same AL within certain TTIs (single TTI) as during expected retransmission; para. 38 and para. 49, retransmission includes increase in CCEs of control resources; para. 35, monitoring all PDCCH candidates in UE-specific search space (USSS); para. 59).
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 Bagheri to the modified system of Ericsson and Panteleev, where Ericsson and Panteleev’s modified system along with Bagheri’s reduced overhead with low latency (para. 10 and para. 17 and para. 22) improves user experience by enabling services requiring reliability and low latency.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ericsson and Panteleev teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
The combination of Ericsson and Panteleev does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of PDCCH repetitions includes an information field to trigger repetition based transmission of data to or from the UE.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bagheri teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of PDCCH repetitions includes an information field to trigger repetition based transmission of data to or from the UE (BS transmits/receives PDSCH/PUSCH to/from UE via assignment/grant on PDCCH; para. 03 and para. 07 and para. 22, UE monitors for retransmission based on PDCCH; para. 27-28 and para. 50, UE receives assignment/grant for UL/DL retransmission; para. 39).
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 Bagheri to the modified system of Ericsson and Panteleev, where Ericsson and Panteleev’s modified system along with Bagheri’s reduced overhead with low latency (para. 10 and para. 17 and para. 22) improves user experience by enabling services requiring reliability and low latency.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Ericsson and Panteleev teaches the limitation of previous claim 14.
Ericsson 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, Panteleev further teaches wherein the plurality of PDCCH repetitions are transmitted using an aggregation level of at least 16 (PDCCH repetition using aggregation level of 16 or more; para. 44-45).
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 Panteleev to the modified system of Ericsson and Panteleev, where Ericsson and Panteleev’s modified system along with Panteleev’s improved reliability under latency constraints (para. 34) improves user experience by enabling services requiring reliability and low latency.
The combination of Ericsson and Panteleev does not explicitly disclose to accommodate at least two candidate PDCCHs at the aggregation level within a single transmission time interval (TTI).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bagheri teaches to accommodate at least two candidate PDCCHs at the aggregation level within a single transmission time interval (TTI) (decoding candidates (at least two candidate PDCCHs) at same AL within certain TTIs (single TTI) as during expected retransmission; para. 38 and para. 49, retransmission includes increase in CCEs of control resources; para. 35, monitoring all PDCCH candidates in UE-specific search space (USSS); para. 59).
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 Bagheri to the modified system of Ericsson and Panteleev, where Ericsson and Panteleev’s modified system along with Bagheri’s reduced overhead with low latency (para. 10 and para. 17 and para. 22) improves user experience by enabling services requiring reliability and low latency.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Ericsson and Panteleev teaches the limitation of previous claim 14.
The combination of Ericsson and Panteleev does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of PDCCH repetitions includes an information field to trigger repetition based transmission of data to or from the UE.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bagheri teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of PDCCH repetitions includes an information field to trigger repetition based transmission of data to or from the UE (BS transmits/receives PDSCH/PUSCH to/from UE via assignment/grant on PDCCH; para. 03 and para. 07 and para. 22, UE monitors for retransmission based on PDCCH; para. 27-28 and para. 50, UE receives assignment/grant for UL/DL retransmission; para. 39).
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 Bagheri to the modified system of Ericsson and Panteleev, where Ericsson and Panteleev’s modified system along with Bagheri’s reduced overhead with low latency (para. 10 and para. 17 and para. 22) improves user experience by enabling services requiring reliability and low latency.
Claim(s) 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericsson in view of Panteleev, and further in view of Moroga et al. (US 2018/0115925 A1) hereinafter Moroga.
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Ericsson and Panteleev teaches the limitation of previous claim 14.
The combination of Ericsson and Panteleev does not explicitly disclose further comprising: detecting one of the plurality of PDCCH repetitions; and monitoring the at least one of PDSCH repetition based on the detected PDCCH repetition without detecting the remaining PDCCH repetitions.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Moroga teaches further comprising: detecting one of the plurality of PDCCH repetitions (UE employs repetition in DL [detecting]; para. [33, 41], PDCCH repetition; para. 90); and monitoring the at least one of PDSCH repetition based on the detected PDCCH repetition without detecting the remaining PDCCH repetitions (UE feeds back HARQ ACK when repetition DL is received successfully and stops [without detecting remaining PDCCH repetitions]; para. 33).
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 Moroga to the modified system of Ericsson and Panteleev, where Ericsson and Panteleev’s modified system along with Moroga’s reducing monopolization of resources in repetitions transmission (para. 09-11) improves efficiency of wireless resources in systems using repetitious transmission.
Regarding claim 32, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 31.
Regarding claim 33, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 31.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 12, 14, 17, 20, and 27-30 is/are (alternatively) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US 2019/0020506 A1, made of record in the OA of 3/10/2025, all citations are supported by US Provisional Application No. 62/532,582, filed 7/14/2017) hereinafter Cheng in view of Lee et al. (US 2014/0098761 A1) hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 1, Cheng teaches a method for wireless communications by a network entity (base station (BS) communicating with user equipment (UE); para. 59), the method comprising: transmitting, to a user equipment (UE), a plurality of physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) repetitions (multiple physical downlink control channel (PDCCHs) including downlink control information (DCI) [repetitions] configured by BS and transmitted to UE; para. 74), each PDCCH repetition scheduling transmission of at least one physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) repetition of a plurality of PDSCH repetitions (each PDCCH including DCI, each DCI scheduling physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) repetition; para. 74-82 and Fig. 3) within a repetition window (each DCI scheduling PDSCH repetition, PDSCH includes same data; para. 74-82, PDSCH in transport block in same slot; para. 84-85 and Fig. 3 showing repetition PDSCH), wherein each PDCCH repetition is transmitted in a different frequency resource set (PDCCH including DCI transmitted on different control resource sets (CORESETs); para. 74-78, 80, 85], CORESETs on different frequencies; para. [9, 23, 73] and Fig. 3).
While Cheng discloses HARQ number [HARQ process at least suggesting HARQ ACK and/or NACK], Cheng does not explicitly disclose receiving, from the UE, a single hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) acknowledgment (ACK) feedback indicating reception of the plurality of PDSCH repetitions.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches receiving, from the UE, a single hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) acknowledgment (ACK) feedback indicating reception of the plurality of PDSCH repetitions (HARQ-ACK not reported until last repetition of PDSCH; para. 105, same data transmitted in consecutive subframe acknowledged with HARQ-ACK after last transmission; para. [107, 116-120] and Figs. 6-9).
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 system of Cheng, where Cheng’s repetition (para. [06, 38, 62, 74-75, 77-78, 80-81, 85, 119]) along with Lee’s repetition (para. [04, 84, 105, 139, 145, 239]) improves user satisfaction by enabling services such as ultra-reliable low latency communication (URLLC) and improved coverage with coverage enhancement.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Chen and Lee teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
While Chen discloses candidate PDCCH, aggregation levels, TTIs, and multiple repetitions in the same time slot, 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 at the aggregation level within a single transmission time interval (TTI).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee further 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 at the aggregation level within a single transmission time interval (TTI) (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 Cheng and Lee, where Cheng and Lee’s modified system along with Lee’s repetition (para. [04, 84, 105, 139, 145, 239]) improves user satisfaction by enabling services such as ultra-reliable low latency communication (URLLC) and improved coverage with coverage enhancement.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Chen and Lee teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Chen further teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of PDCCH repetitions includes an information field to trigger repetition based transmission of data to or from the UE (DCI in PDCCH includes information decoded by UE [information field] for uplink / downlink; para. 63, DCI includes scheduling [trigger] for PDSCH repetition data; para. 74-75 and Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Chen and Lee teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Chen does not explicitly disclose further comprising monitoring for the single HARQ ACK feedback from the UE only after all the plurality of PDSCH repetitions are transmitted.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee further teaches monitoring for the single HARQ ACK feedback from the UE only after all the plurality of PDSCH repetitions are transmitted (HARQ-ACK received after last repeated transmission; para. 52 and Fig. 2).
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 Cheng and Lee, where Cheng and Lee’s modified system along with Lee’s repetition (para. [04, 84, 105, 139, 145, 239]) improves user satisfaction by enabling services such as ultra-reliable low latency communication (URLLC) and improved coverage with coverage enhancement.
Regarding claim 14, Cheng teaches a method for wireless communications by a user equipment (UE) (user equipment (UE) communicating with base station (BS); para. 59), the method comprising: monitoring different frequency resource sets for a plurality of physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) repetitions (UE monitors data scheduling information in control resource sets (CORESETs); para. 75, CORESETs on different frequencies; para. [9, 23, 73] and Fig. 3, multiple physical downlink control channel (PDCCHs) including downlink control information (DCI) [repetitions] transmitted on different CORESETs; para. 74-78, 80, 85]), each PDCCH repetition scheduling transmission of at least one physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) repetition of a plurality of PDSCH repetitions (each PDCCH including DCI, each DCI scheduling physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) repetition; para. 74-82 and Fig. 3) within a repetition window (each DCI scheduling PDSCH repetition, PDSCH includes same data; para. 74-82, PDSCH in transport block in same slot; para. 84-85 and Fig. 3 showing repetition PDSCH).
While Cheng discloses HARQ number [HARQ process at least suggesting HARQ ACK and/or NACK], Cheng does not explicitly disclose transmitting a single hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) acknowledgment (ACK) feedback indicating reception of the plurality of PDSCH repetitions.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches transmitting a single hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) acknowledgment (ACK) feedback indicating reception of the plurality of PDSCH repetitions (HARQ-ACK not reported until last repetition of PDSCH; para. 105, same data transmitted in consecutive subframe acknowledged with HARQ-ACK after last transmission; para. [107, 116-120] and Figs. 6-9).
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 system of Cheng, where Cheng’s repetition (para. [06, 38, 62, 74-75, 77-78, 80-81, 85, 119]) along with Lee’s repetition (para. [04, 84, 105, 139, 145, 239]) improves user satisfaction by enabling services such as ultra-reliable low latency communication (URLLC) and improved coverage with coverage enhancement.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Chen and Lee teaches the limitation of previous claim 14.
While Chen discloses candidate PDCCH, aggregation levels, TTIs, and multiple repetitions in the same time slot, 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 at the aggregation level within a single transmission time interval (TTI).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee further 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 at the aggregation level within a single transmission time interval (TTI) (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 Cheng and Lee, where Cheng and Lee’s modified system along with Lee’s repetition (para. [04, 84, 105, 139, 145, 239]) improves user satisfaction by enabling services such as ultra-reliable low latency communication (URLLC) and improved coverage with coverage enhancement.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Chen and Lee teaches the limitation of previous claim 14.
Chen further teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of PDCCH repetitions includes an information field to trigger repetition based transmission of data to or from the UE (DCI in PDCCH includes information decoded by UE [information field] for uplink / downlink; para. 63, DCI includes scheduling [trigger] for PDSCH repetition data; para. 74-75 and Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 27, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1, including an apparatus (base station; para. 63-64: Chen), means for transmitting (base station transmits: para. 63-64: Chen), means for receiving (base station supports uplink [receives]; para. 63: Chen).
Regarding claim 28, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 14, including an apparatus (user equipment (UE) communicating with base station (BS); para. 59: Cheng), means for monitoring (UE monitors; para. 75: Cheng), means for transmitting (UE supports uplink [transmitting]; para. 63: Chen).
Regarding claim 29, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1, including a transmitter (base station transmits: para. 63-64: Chen), a processor (processor; para. 327: Lee).
Regarding claim 30, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 14, including a receiver (UE monitors [receiver]; para. 75: Cheng) a processor (processor; para. 34-35: Lee).
Claim(s) 9 and 22 is/are (alternatively) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Lee, and further in view of vivo (R1-1801549, Discussion on PDCCH repetition for URLLC, made of record in the IDS of 12/14/2022) hereinafter vivo199.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Chen and Lee teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
While the combination of Chen and Lee discloses multiple DCIs scheduling the same PDSCH and PDSCH repetition, the combination of Chen and Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein each PDCCH repetition indicates the same at least one PDSCH repetition within the repetition window.
However, in the same field of endeavor, vivo199 teaches wherein each PDCCH repetition (different repeated transmissions of PDCCH are combined, PDCCH schedules PDSCH; page 5 section 2.2.3 and Fig. 5) indicates the same at least one PDSCH repetition within the repetition window (different repeated transmissions of PDSCH are combined; page 5 section 2.2.3 and Fig. 5).
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 vivo199 to the modified system of Cheng and Lee, where Cheng and Lee’s modified system along with vivo199’s proposals for PDCCH and PDSCH repetition (page 1 section 1, page 6 section 3) improves interoperability between different manufacturers by standardizing functionality.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Chen and Lee teaches the limitation of previous claim 14.
While the combination of Chen and Lee discloses multiple DCIs scheduling the same PDSCH and PDSCH repetition, the combination of Chen and Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein each PDCCH repetition indicates the same at least one PDSCH repetition within the repetition window.
However, in the same field of endeavor, vivo199 teaches wherein each PDCCH repetition (different repeated transmissions of PDCCH are combined, PDCCH schedules PDSCH; page 5 section 2.2.3 and Fig. 5) indicates the same at least one PDSCH repetition within the repetition window (different repeated transmissions of PDSCH are combined; page 5 section 2.2.3 and Fig. 5).
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 vivo199 to the modified system of Cheng and Lee, where Cheng and Lee’s modified system along with vivo199’s proposals for PDCCH and PDSCH repetition (page 1 section 1, page 6 section 3) improves interoperability between different manufacturers by standardizing functionality.
Claim(s) 10 is/are (alternatively) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Lee, and further in view of Hwang et al. (US 2019/0379489 A1) hereinafter Hwang.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Chen and Lee teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
While the combination of Chen and Lee discloses HARQ configuration in DCI and DCI including same data, Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein each PDCCH repetition activates a grant-free repetition-based transmission.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hwang teaches wherein each PDCCH repetition activates a grant-free repetition-based transmission (HARQ-ACK [transmission] designated in DCI [PDCCH]; para. 110, HARQ-ACK transmission timing configured as semi-static [grant-free]; para. 119).
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 Hwang to the modified system of Cheng and Lee, where Cheng and Lee’s modified system along with Hwang’s DCI for PDSCH indicating HARQ-ACK timing (para. 85) improves efficiency of the system by reducing overhead.
Claim(s) 23 is/are (alternatively) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Lee, and further in view of You et al. (US 2018/0375636 A1) hereinafter You.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Chen and Lee teaches the limitation of previous claim 14.
While the combination of Chen and Lee discloses multiple DCIs scheduling the same PDSCH and PDSCH repetition, the combination of Chen and Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein each PDCCH repetition activates a grant-free repetition-based transmission.
However, in the same field of endeavor, You teaches wherein each PDCCH repetition activates a grant-free repetition-based transmission (DCI [PDCCH candidate / repetition] corresponding to transmission mode; para. [85, 162, 165] and Table 7, transmission mode semi-statically configures UE to receive PDSCH according to transmission mode; para. 85).
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 You to the modified system of Cheng and Lee, where Cheng and Lee’s modified system along with You’s reception/transmission of data/control using limited resources (para. [04-07, 182]) improves the wireless system efficient reception/transmission of data/control of a small amount of data or at a low latency for various services.
Claim(s) 31-33 is/are (alternatively) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Lee, and further in view of LG Electronics (R1-1802227, Discussion on PDCCH repetition for URLLC, made of record in the IDS of 2/18/2025) hereinafter LG227.
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Chen and Lee teaches the limitation of previous claim 14.
Chen further teaches detecting one of the plurality of PDCCH repetitions (UE successfully decodes DCIx; para. 82 and Fig. 3).
While the combination of Chen and Lee discloses detecting PDSCH based on detected PDCCH, the combination of Chen and Lee does not explicitly disclose monitoring the at least one of PDSCH repetition based on the detected PDCCH repetition without detecting the remaining PDCCH repetitions.
However, in the same field of endeavor, LG227 teaches monitoring the at least one of PDSCH repetition based on the detected PDCCH repetition without detecting the remaining PDCCH repetitions (UE ignores redundant PDCCH after UE successfully decodes PDCCH in PDCCH repetition, PDCCH schedules [UE monitoring] overlapped [repetition] PDSCH; page 3 section 2.2).
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 LG227 to the modified system of Cheng and Lee, where Cheng and Lee’s modified system along with LG227’s proposed PDCCH design (page 1 section 1, pages 3-4 section 3) improves interoperability between different manufacturers by standardizing functionality.
Regarding claim 32, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 31.
Regarding claim 33, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 31.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Seo et al. (US 2018/0007709 A1) discloses a method of transmitting/receiving signal in wireless communication system supporting machine type communication and device therefor.
Papasakellariou et al. (US 2016/0100422 A1) discloses a system and method for improving spectral efficiency and coverage for user equipments.
Yang et al. (US 2019/0081750 A1) discloses a method and apparatus for multi-TRP and multi-panel transmission in wireless communications.
Li et al. (US 2020/0344752 A1) discloses Beta offset management for URLLC UCI.
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/patents/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