DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment filed 7/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 40, 42, 46, 48, 52, and 54 have been amended.
Claims 40-57 remain pending.
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.
Claims 40-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babaei et al. (US201902539197), hereafter Babaei, in view of Chin et al. (US20210219322A1), hereafter Chin2.
Regarding claims 40, 46, and 52,
Babaei discloses an apparatus (Fig. 3; wireless device 110) comprising at least one processor (314); and at least one memory/non-transitory computer readable medium (315) comprising computer program code/instructions (316) stored thereon, the at least one memory and computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to perform method (Fig. 12, 19) comprising receiving at least one configuration from at least one network entity (i.e. base station; Fig. 12, step 1210; Fig. 18, config parameters; Fig. 19-21, 1910-2110; paragraphs 189, 276).
Babaei further shows evaluating at least one received uplink grant associated with the at least one configuration (Fig. 16-18; paragraphs 299-301; received dynamic grant for PUSCH transmission) comprising a logical channel priority (paragraphs 182-184, 328, 341; priority handling/override between logical channels of one UE by means of logical channel prioritization) and whether an autonomous transmission is configured (Fig. 16-18; paragraph 338, 345-348; grant associated with HARQ, i.e. autonomous transmission, process number), selecting a value for at least one timer value based on the evaluation (Fig. 5, paragraph 214-219, 251, 308, 335-337; UL scheduled data multiplexed with UCI/mapped to PUSCH; DCI detection for PUSCH transmission timing value/offset; consideration of UL grant in associated PUSCH).
Babaei further discloses performing at least one physical uplink shared channel associated with the received at least one uplink grant to the at least one network entity (paragraph 214-219, 233, 251, 276, 308, 309, 318).
Babaei does not expressly show the at least one configuration comprises at least one criterion the value for timer value selection implicitly indicated by uplink grant type.
Chin2 discloses analogous art (Title: Handling Uplink (Re)Transmission in NR-U) including the at least one configuration comprises at least one criterion the value for timer value selection implicitly indicated by a type of the uplink grant (Fig. 3, 4, 6, 7; paragraph 268-272; implicit determination of ACK/NACK specific timer value based on the configuration criterion configured as grant type 1 or type 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Babaei by including the at least one configuration comprises at least one criterion the value for timer value selection implicitly indicated by a type of the uplink grant, as shown by Chin2, thereby aiding in handling retransmission in unlicensed spectrum.
Regarding claims 41, 44, 47, 50, 53, and 56,
The combination of Babaei and Chin2 discloses the at least one timer value is associated to a configured grant timer or a configured grant re-transmission timer (paragraph 318-321; configured grant timer for (re-)transmission via HARQ).
Regarding claims 42, 45, 48, 51, 54, and 57,
The combination of Babaei and Chin2 discloses the at least one configuration may include one or more of: at least one first configured grant timer value/period of time that the timer should run once started, at least one second configured grant timer value/period of time that the timer should run once started, and at least one criterion configured for timer value selection (paragraphs 251, 256-258, 299-301, 321).
Regarding claims 43, 49, and 55,
The combination of Babaei and Chin2 discloses the at least one criterion comprises one or more of: at least one grant priority level, at least one logical channel priority, at least one grant parameter, and data carried by at least one physical uplink shared channel (paragraphs 184, 328, 341; see above).
Claims 40-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chin et al. (US20200154469A1), hereafter Chin, in view of Chin2.
Regarding claims 40, 46, and 52,
Chin discloses an apparatus (Fig. 10) comprising at least one processor (1026) and at least one memory/non-transitory computer readable medium (1028) comprising computer program code/instructions (1032) stored thereon, the at least one memory and computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to perform method (Fig. 3) comprising receiving at least one configuration from at least one network entity (302-304), evaluating at least one received uplink grant against at least one criterion associated with the at least one configuration (306-312) comprising a logical channel priority and whether an autonomous transmission has been configured.
Chin further discloses performing transmission associated with the received at least one uplink grant to the at least one network entity (Abstract; PUSCH transmission).
Chin does not expressly show the at least one configuration comprises at least one criterion the value for timer value selection implicitly indicated by uplink grant type.
Chin2 discloses analogous art (Title: Handling Uplink (Re)Transmission in NR-U) including the at least one configuration comprises at least one criterion the value for timer value selection implicitly indicated by a type of the uplink grant (Fig. 3, 4, 6, 7; paragraph 268-272; implicit determination of ACK/NACK specific timer value based on the configuration criterion configured as grant type 1 or type 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Chin by including the at least one configuration comprises at least one criterion the value for timer value selection implicitly indicated by a type of the uplink grant, as shown by Chin2, thereby aiding in handling retransmission in unlicensed spectrum.
Regarding claims 41-45, 47-51, and 53-57,
The combination of Chin and Chin2 discloses the at least one timer value is associated to a configured grant timer or a configured grant re-transmission timer (paragraph 34), the at least one configuration may include one or more of: at least one first configured grant timer value/period of time that the timer should run once started, at least one second configured grant timer value/period of time that the timer should run once started, and at least one criterion configured for timer value selection (Fig. 3, 314; first PUSCH duration or second PUSCH duration), starting at least one timer according to the at least one selected configured grant timer value (Fig. 4-9; paragraph 48-54; determination of which CG configuration and associated HARQ ID started the timer; see also Freda cited above), wherein the at least one criterion comprises one or more of: at least one grant priority level, at least one logical channel priority, at least one grant parameter, and data carried by at least one physical uplink shared channel and wherein the evaluating comprises evaluating the at least one received uplink grant based on at least one logical channel priority (paragraph 45-60; priority of various CG configurations associated with HARQ IDs).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on pg. 8-11 of the Amendment, Applicant contends that neither primary reference to Babaei or Chin expressly discloses at least one criterion configured for timer value selection, and that secondary reference to Chin2 also fails to disclose this element of the claims, as amended.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As now clarified in the rejections above, secondary reference to Chin2 is relied upon to show the implicit indication of grant type (type 1 or type 2) as providing for the determination of a specific timer value for ACK/NACK feedback. Combining this disclosure with that of Babaei and/or Chin provides assistance in handling retransmission over unlicensed spectrum, and therefore meets a reasonable interpretation of the pending claims. Therefore, the rejections based on the combinations of either Babaei or Chin with Chin2 properly reject the pending claims and the rejections are maintained accordingly.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GREGORY B SEFCHECK whose telephone number is (571)272-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-4PM.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached on 571-272-3144. 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.
/GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights