DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to Applicant’s reply dated 6/26/26. Claims 49-51, 53-62, and 64-72 have been examined. Claims 52 and 63 have been cancelled.
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 . 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.
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.
Claim(s) 49-51, 56, 59-63, 67, and 70-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huawei, “Details of Dynamic Scheduling Information”, 3GPP TSG RAN WG2 #67, R2-094418, Shenzhen, China, Aug. 24-28, 2009 (included in IDS, hereafter Huawei) in view of ZTE, “PUSCH enhancements for NR URLLC”, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 # 97, R1-1906411, Reno, USA, May 13-17, 2019 (included in IDS, hereafter ZTE).
Regarding Claim 49 (Currently Amended),
A method, in a network node of a wireless communication system, for downlink or uplink transmissions to or from a wireless communication device, the method comprising:
scheduling multiple downlink or uplink transmissions to or from the wireless communication device, using a single scheduling message, wherein a number of scheduled intervals is indicated in the scheduling message by a dedicated field [Huawei: Sec. 2; Discussion: dynamic scheduling information indicates which subframes are used by every MTCH in the MSAP occasion; Agreement 4 implicitly indicates that MSAP occasion is a dynamic scheduling interval for eNB to schedule MBMS services received from BM-SC with a Timestamp indication; the eNB’s scheduling capability, MBMS services’ response time, MBMS services’ bit rate requirement and some other parameters determine the length of the dynamic scheduling interval],
wherein a time resource assignment indication in the scheduling message, distinct from the dedicated field, maps to a predetermined table of time resource allocations; and wherein the predetermined table of time resource allocations comprises: … a start symbol applicable to one or more scheduled intervals; and a transmission length applicable to one or more scheduled intervals [Huawei: Sec. 2.1; indication of subframes used by every MTCH; Sec. 2.1.3; length of subframes of every MTCH is provided in dynamic scheduling information; length represents the number of subframes at least partially occupied by that MTCH; sharing bit indicates whether that MTCH shares the last subframe with the next MTCH; start point of every MTCH is implicitly indicated by this method; in this case, Table 1 shores the values of Length and Sharing Bit for each MTCH; the cost is 5 bits for length indication and 1 sharing bit; the total cost is 6 bits; Sec. 2; Discussion: there are at most 32*6 = 192 MBSFN subframes in one dynamic scheduling interval; 8 bits are enough to indicate the start point or the end point of every MTCH in the dynamic scheduling interval; if dedicated cells are supported in R10, 320ms contains 320 subframes; therefore in this case, the start point indication costs 9 bits];
wherein each of one or more entries in the predetermined table comprises any one or more of: a mapping type applicable to a first number of scheduled intervals; a mapping type applicable to scheduled intervals other than a first number of scheduled intervals; and a flag indicating whether, (a) the start symbol and the transmission length apply to every scheduled interval, or (b) the start symbol applies to a first scheduled interval of multiple scheduled intervals with no gaps in between and the transmission length is a transmission length for the last scheduled interval of the multiple scheduled intervals, with all scheduled intervals between the first scheduled interval and the last scheduled interval having a transmission length equal to a scheduling interval length [Huawei: Sec. 2.1.3; length of subframes of every MTCH is provided in dynamic scheduling information; length represents the number of subframes at least partially occupied by that MTCH; sharing bit indicates whether that MTCH shares the last subframe with the next MTCH; start point of every MTCH is implicitly indicated by this method; in this case, Table 1 shows the values of Length and Sharing Bit for each MTCH; it is easy to calculate start point of every MTCH by using following formula that service 0 starts from subframe 0, and service 1, 2, and 3 start from subframe 2, where SPn means start point of service n; the cost is 5 bits for length indication and 1 sharing bit; the total cost is 6 bits; Sec. 2; Discussion: there are at most 32*6 = 192 MBSFN subframes in one dynamic scheduling interval].
However, Huawei does not teach that the predetermined table of time resource allocations comprises: an interval offset for a first scheduled interval ….
POSITA would have considered ZTE’s TDRA field in DCI and would have incorporated it in Huawei’s dynamic scheduling information.
ZTE teaches:
wherein the predetermined table of time resource allocations comprises: an interval offset for a first scheduled interval … [ZTE: Sec. 3; further details for option 6; for the time domain resource assignment of option 6, the number of repetitions, starting symbols of each repetition, length of each repetition, and mapping of repetitions to slots can be obtained from the TDRA field in the DCI indicating an entry in a higher layer configured table; Sec. 3.2; one example is shown in Table 1 assuming the largest actual repetition number is 3; each entry indicates PUSCH mapping type, the slot offset which indicates the slot index for each PUSCH repetition and SLIV for each repetition].
It would have been obvious for POSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings Huawei and ZTE in order to better support URLLC (e.g., in multiplexed data and voice communications) [ZTE: Sec. 1].
Regarding Claim 50,
wherein the scheduling intervals are slots or mini-slots [Huawei: slot == subframe; Sec. 2; service with bit rate 300kbps in 5MHz bandwidth with QAM16, code rate ½ needs 19 subframes per scheduling interval; considering Variable Bit Rate of services, 32 subframes are enough; so 5 bits are enough to indicate the length of subframe used by every MTCH in dynamic scheduling interval].
Regarding Claim 51,
further comprising: sending one or more downlink transmissions to the wireless device or receiving one or more uplink transmissions from the wireless communication device, in accordance with the scheduling message [Huawei: Sec. 2.1; indication of subframes used by every MTCH; dynamic scheduling information indicates which subframes are used by every MTCH in every dynamic scheduling interval].
Regarding Claim 56,
Huawei teaches that dynamic scheduling information indicates which subframes are used by every MTCH in the MSAP occasion [Huawei: Sec. 2].
However, Huawei does not teach that the scheduling message includes an indication of a listen-before-talk priority class.
ZTE teaches:
wherein the scheduling message includes an indication of a listen-before-talk priority class, wherein the indication is applicable to one or to all of the scheduled intervals [ZTE: priority class == URLLC; Sec. 4.3; if the UE is configured with pusch-AggregationFactor, the same symbol allocation is applied across the pusch-AggregationFactor consecutive slots; if one transmission in a slot collides with slot configuration, the transmission on that slot is omitted and not counted as an available slot for multi-slot PUSCH transmission; for URLLC traffic, things are different, where all K repetitions should be guaranteed and transmitted as soon as possible].
It would have been obvious for POSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings Huawei and ZTE in order to better support URLLC [ZTE: Sec. 1].
Note:
LBT is inherently associated with collision with random backoff or collision avoidance.
Regarding Claim 59,
wherein the scheduling message indicates different frequency resources for different scheduling intervals [Huawei: Sec. 2; service with bit rate 300kbps in 5MHz bandwidth with QAM16, code rate ½ needs 19 subframes per scheduling interval; considering Variable Bit Rate of services, 32 subframes are enough; so 5 bits are enough to indicate the length of subframe used by every MTCH in dynamic scheduling interval; Sec. 2.4; to be safe, let us assume that scheduling information for one MTCH occupies 20 bits; if a 1.4MHz system is used to provide MBMS, there are 1000 bits available in one TTI; thus about 50 services could be scheduled in one dynamic scheduling information].
Regarding claims 60-63, 67, and 70, which recites a method, in a wireless communication device operating in a wireless communication system having the same claim limitations as those in claims 49-52, 56, and 59 above, the same rationale of rejection as presented in claims 49-52, 56, and 59 is applicable.
Regarding claim 71, which recites a network node comprising transceiver circuitry and processing circuitry operatively associated with the transceiver circuitry and configured to perform a method according to claim 49, the same rationale of rejection as presented in claim 49 is applicable.
Regarding claim 72, which recites a wireless device comprising transceiver circuitry and processing circuitry operatively associated with the transceiver circuitry and configured to perform a method according to claim 60, the same rational of rejection as presented in claim 60 is applicable.
Claim(s) 54-55, 58, 65-66, and 69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huawei-ZTE in view of Hugl (US 2017/0331602).
Regarding Claim 54,
In Huawei-ZTE combination, Huawei teaches:
wherein the scheduling message schedules uplink transmissions … [Huawei: Sec. 2.1; indication of subframes used by every MTCH].
However, Huawei-ZTE does not teach that the scheduling message … includes an indication of whether the wireless communication device is permitted to use fewer than all of the multiple intervals scheduled by the scheduling message.
Hugl teaches:
wherein the scheduling message … includes an indication of whether the wireless communication device is permitted to use fewer than all of the multiple intervals scheduled by the scheduling message [Hugl: Fig. 4B; 0104; The eNB determines at block 454 multiple uplink subframes that are to be scheduled to a UE; at least some of these multiple uplink subframes may be shortened such that uplink transmission is prohibited in only a portion thereof, as detailed above with numerous examples; If at least one of the multiple uplink subframes is shortened then the parameter set is selected such that the corresponding timing indication indicates the identified one uplink subframe from among the multiple uplink subframes, and in the above examples this identified uplink subframe is always a shortened uplink subframe; this selection is for the value of n in the above examples, and since the timing indication gives the value of x this selection is highly dependent on whether the embodiment utilizes n=x or n=some modulo function on x (or other implementations)].
Note:
By taking out a shortened uplink subframes, what remains is less than all of the multiple intervals scheduled.
It would have been obvious for POSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Huawei-ZTE and Hugl in order to reduce the (DL) control load [Hugl: 0031].
Regarding Claim 55,
In Huawei-ZTE combination, Huawei teaches:
wherein the scheduling message schedules uplink transmissions … [Huawei: Sec. 2.1; indication of subframes used by every MTCH].
However, Huawei-ZTE does not teach that the scheduling message … includes an indication that the wireless communication device is permitted to use only one of the multiple intervals scheduled by the scheduling message
Hugl teaches:
wherein the scheduling message schedules uplink transmissions and includes an indication that the wireless communication device is permitted to use only one of the multiple intervals scheduled by the scheduling message [Hugl: Fig. 4B; 0104; The eNB determines at block 454 multiple uplink subframes that are to be scheduled to a UE; at least some of these multiple uplink subframes may be shortened such that uplink transmission is prohibited in only a portion thereof, as detailed above with numerous examples; If at least one of the multiple uplink subframes is shortened then the parameter set is selected such that the corresponding timing indication indicates the identified one uplink subframe from among the multiple uplink subframes, and in the above examples this identified uplink subframe is always a shortened uplink subframe; this selection is for the value of n in the above examples, and since the timing indication gives the value of x this selection is highly dependent on whether the embodiment utilizes n=x or n=some modulo function on x (or other implementations); the number of UEs triggered to send SRS during those k subframes may also impact eNB's decision how many shortened subframes it allocates during multi-subframe scheduling period of k subframes].
Note:
By taking out a shortened uplink subframes, what remains is less than all of the multiple intervals scheduled including only one of the multiple intervals.
It would have been obvious for POSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Huawei-ZTE and Hugl in order to reduce the (DL) control load [Hugl: 0031].
Regarding Claim 58,
In Huawei-ZTE combination, Huawei teaches:
wherein the method comprises sending, to the wireless communication device, configuration information … each multi-interval scheduling configuration comprising one or more allocation parameters [Huawei: Sec. 2.1; indication of subframes used by every MTCH; Sec. 2.1.3; length of subframes of every MTCH is provided in dynamic scheduling information; length represents the number of subframes at least partially occupied by that MTCH; sharing bit indicates whether that MTCH shares the last subframe with the next MTCH; start point of every MTCH is implicitly indicated by this method; in this case, Table 1 shows the values of Length and Sharing Bit for each MTCH; it is easy to calculate start point of every MTCH by using following formula that service 0 starts from subframe 0, and service 1, 2, and 3 start from subframe 2, where SPn means start point of service n].
However, Huawei-ZTE does not teach a plurality of multi-interval scheduling configurations … the scheduling message indicates one of the plurality of multi-interval scheduling configurations.
Hugl teaches:
wherein the method comprises sending, to the wireless communication device, configuration information specifying a plurality of multi-interval scheduling configurations … and wherein the scheduling message indicates one of the plurality of multi-interval scheduling configurations [Hugl: a plurality of multi-interval scheduling configurations == configuration of multiple parameter sets; 0104; Fig. 4B; at block 452 the eNB transmits to a UE a configuration of multiple parameter sets each set including a timing indication; the eNB determines at block 454 multiple uplink subframes that are to be scheduled to a UE; If at least one of the multiple uplink subframes is shortened then the parameter set is selected such that the corresponding timing indication indicates the identified one uplink subframe from among the multiple uplink subframes, and in the above examples this identified uplink subframe is always a shortened uplink subframe; finally at block 460 the eNB transmits to the UE a grant that schedules the UE for the multiple uplink subframes and that triggers the UE to transmit a reference signal and/or a CSI report, the grant further identifying the selected parameter set and which of the multiple uplink subframes are shortened].
It would have been obvious for POSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Huawei-ZTE and Hugl in order to reduce the (DL) control load [Hugl: 0031].
Regarding claims 65, 66, and 69, which recites the same claim limitations as those in claims 54, 55, and 58 above; the same rationale of rejection as presented in claims 54, 55, and 58 is applicable.
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.
Claim(s) 49-51, 56, 59-63, 67, and 70-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over ZTE, “PUSCH enhancements for NR URLLC”, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 # 97, R1-1906411, Reno, USA, May 13-17, 2019 (included in IDS, hereafter ZTE).
Regarding Claim 49 (Currently Amended),
A method, in a network node of a wireless communication system, for downlink or uplink transmissions to or from a wireless communication device, the method comprising:
scheduling multiple downlink or uplink transmissions to or from the wireless communication device, using a single scheduling message, wherein a number of scheduled intervals is indicated in the scheduling message by a dedicated field [ZTE: Sec. 3; further details for option 6: for the time domain resource assignment of option 6, the number of repetitions, starting symbols of each repetition, length of each repetition, and mapping of repetitions to slots can be obtained from the TDRA field in the DCI indicating an entry in a higher layer configured table],
wherein a time resource assignment indication in the scheduling message, distinct from the dedicated field, maps to a predetermined table of time resource allocations [ZTE: Sec. 3; further details for option 6: for the time domain resource assignment of option 6, the number of repetitions, starting symbols of each repetition, length of each repetition, and mapping of repetitions to slots can be obtained from the TDRA field in the DCI indicating an entry in a higher layer configured table]; and
wherein the predetermined table of time resource allocations comprises: an interval offset for a first scheduled interval; a start symbol applicable to one or more scheduled intervals; and a transmission length applicable to one or more scheduled intervals [ ZTE: Sec. 3; further details for option 6: for the time domain resource assignment of option 6, the number of repetitions, starting symbols of each repetition, length of each repetition, and mapping of repetitions to slots can be obtained from the TDRA field in the DCI indicating an entry in a higher layer configured table; Sec. 3.2; one example is shown in Table 1 assuming the largest actual repetition number is 3; each entry indicates PUSCH mapping type, the slot offset which indicates the slot index for each PUSCH repetition and SLIV for each repetition];
wherein each of one or more entries in the predetermined table comprises any one or more of: a mapping type applicable to a first number of scheduled intervals; a mapping type applicable to scheduled intervals other than a first number of scheduled intervals; and a flag indicating whether, (a) the start symbol and the transmission length apply to every scheduled interval, or (b) the start symbol applies to a first scheduled interval of multiple scheduled intervals with no gaps in between and the transmission length is a transmission length for the last scheduled interval of the multiple scheduled intervals, with all scheduled intervals between the first scheduled interval and the last scheduled interval having a transmission length equal to a scheduling interval length [ZTE: Sec. 3.2; one example is shown in Table 1 assuming the largest actual repetition number is 3; each entry indicates PUSCH mapping type, the slot offset which indicates the slot index for each PUSCH repetition and SLIV for each repetition; same to Rel-15, the slot index of the first repetition (numbered from #0) can be determined by K2, i.e., slot offset #0 in Table1; the slot index of the remaining repetition can be determined by slot offset#i as n+slot offset#i, where n is the slot index of the first repetition, and slot offset#i is the slot offset associated with repetition index #i; in Table 1, if row index#2 is indicated, then the second repetition is in the same slot as the first repetition, while the third repetition is in the next available slot].
Regarding Claim 50,
wherein the scheduling intervals are slots or mini-slots [ZTE: Sec. 3.2; each entry indicates PUSCH mapping type, the slot offset which indicates slot index for each PUSCH repetition and SLIV for each repetition … in Table 1, if row index # 2 is indicated, then the second repetition is int eh same slot as the first repetition, while the third repetition is in the next available slot].
Regarding Claim 51,
further comprising: sending one or more downlink transmissions to the wireless device or receiving one or more uplink transmissions from the wireless communication device, in accordance with the scheduling message [ZTE: Sec. 3.1; in Rel-15, option 2 is used for dynamic PUSCH with slot based repetitions; min-slot repetition based on option 6 provides more flexibility than Rel-15].
Regarding Claim 56,
wherein the scheduling message includes an indication of a listen-before-talk priority class, wherein the indication is applicable to one or to all of the scheduled intervals [ZTE: priority class == URLLC; Sec. 4.3; if the UE is configured with pusch-AggregationFactor, the same symbol allocation is applied across the pusch-AggregationFactor consecutive slots; if one transmission in a slot collides with slot configuration, the transmission on that slot is omitted and not counted as an available slot for multi-slot PUSCH transmission; for URLLC traffic, things are different, where all K repetitions should be guaranteed and transmitted as soon as possible].
Regarding Claim 59,
wherein the scheduling message indicates different frequency resources for different scheduling intervals [ZTE: Sec. 4.1; frequency hopping is supported for both option 4 and 6; intra-repetition frequency hopping: for a nominal repetition, intra-repetition frequency hopping could reused Rel-15 rules … the starting RB in each hop is given by … where i=0 and i=1 are the first hop and the second hop respectively, and RBstart is the starting RB within the UL BWP, as calculated from the resource block assignment information and RBoffset is the frequency offset in RBs between the two frequency hops; for inter-repetition frequency hopping, it could also reuse Rel-15 rules, i.e., the starting RB in each hop is given by: … RBstart is the starting RB within the UL BWP, as calculated from the resource block assignment information and RBoffset is the frequency offset in RBs between the two frequency hops; Sec. 5; Propossal 9: for mini-slot PUSCH repetition, intra-repetition and inter-repetition frequency hopping can reuse Rel-15 rules, and they cannot be enabled simultaneously].
Regarding claims 60-63, 67, and 70, which recites a method, in a wireless communication device operating in a wireless communication system having the same claim limitations as those in claims 49-52, 56, and 59 above, the same rationale of rejection as presented in claims 49-52, 56, and 59 is applicable.
Regarding claim 71, which recites a network node comprising transceiver circuitry and processing circuitry operatively associated with the transceiver circuitry and configured to perform a method according to claim 49, the same rationale of rejection as presented in claim 49 is applicable.
Regarding claim 72, which recites a wireless device comprising transceiver circuitry and processing circuitry operatively associated with the transceiver circuitry and configured to perform a method according to claim 60, the same rational of rejection as presented in claim 60 is applicable.
Claim(s) 54-55, 58, 65-66, and 69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZTE in view of Hugl (US 2017/0331602).
Regarding Claim 54,
ZTE teaches:
wherein the scheduling message schedules uplink transmissions … [ZTE: Sec. 3; further details for option 6: for the time domain resource assignment of option 6, the number of repetitions, starting symbols of each repetition, length of each repetition, and mapping of repetitions to slots can be obtained from the TDRA field in the DCI indicating an entry in a higher layer configured table].
However, ZTE does not teach that the scheduling message … includes an indication of whether the wireless communication device is permitted to use fewer than all of the multiple intervals scheduled by the scheduling message.
Hugl teaches:
wherein the scheduling message … includes an indication of whether the wireless communication device is permitted to use fewer than all of the multiple intervals scheduled by the scheduling message [Hugl: Fig. 4B; 0104; The eNB determines at block 454 multiple uplink subframes that are to be scheduled to a UE; at least some of these multiple uplink subframes may be shortened such that uplink transmission is prohibited in only a portion thereof, as detailed above with numerous examples; If at least one of the multiple uplink subframes is shortened then the parameter set is selected such that the corresponding timing indication indicates the identified one uplink subframe from among the multiple uplink subframes, and in the above examples this identified uplink subframe is always a shortened uplink subframe; this selection is for the value of n in the above examples, and since the timing indication gives the value of x this selection is highly dependent on whether the embodiment utilizes n=x or n=some modulo function on x (or other implementations)].
Note:
By taking out a shortened uplink subframes, what remains is less than all of the multiple intervals scheduled.
It would have been obvious for POSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of ZTE and Hugl in order to reduce the (DL) control load [Hugl: 0031].
Regarding Claim 55,
ZTE teaches:
wherein the scheduling message schedules uplink transmissions … [Sec. 3; further details for option 6: for the time domain resource assignment of option 6, the number of repetitions, starting symbols of each repetition, length of each repetition, and mapping of repetitions to slots can be obtained from the TDRA field in the DCI indicating an entry in a higher layer configured table].
However, ZTE does not teach that the scheduling message … includes an indication that the wireless communication device is permitted to use only one of the multiple intervals scheduled by the scheduling message
Hugl teaches:
wherein the scheduling message schedules uplink transmissions and includes an indication that the wireless communication device is permitted to use only one of the multiple intervals scheduled by the scheduling message [Hugl: Fig. 4B; 0104; The eNB determines at block 454 multiple uplink subframes that are to be scheduled to a UE; at least some of these multiple uplink subframes may be shortened such that uplink transmission is prohibited in only a portion thereof, as detailed above with numerous examples; If at least one of the multiple uplink subframes is shortened then the parameter set is selected such that the corresponding timing indication indicates the identified one uplink subframe from among the multiple uplink subframes, and in the above examples this identified uplink subframe is always a shortened uplink subframe; this selection is for the value of n in the above examples, and since the timing indication gives the value of x this selection is highly dependent on whether the embodiment utilizes n=x or n=some modulo function on x (or other implementations); the number of UEs triggered to send SRS during those k subframes may also impact eNB's decision how many shortened subframes it allocates during multi-subframe scheduling period of k subframes].
Note:
By taking out a shortened uplink subframes, what remains is less than all of the multiple intervals scheduled including only one of the multiple intervals.
It would have been obvious for POSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of ZTE and Hugl in order to reduce the (DL) control load [Hugl: 0031].
Regarding Claim 58,
ZTE teaches:
wherein the method comprises sending, to the wireless communication device, configuration information … each multi-interval scheduling configuration comprising one or more allocation parameters [ZTE: Sec. 3; further details for option 6; for the time domain resource assignment of option 6, the number of repetitions, starting symbols of each repetition, length of each repetition, and mapping of repetitions to slots can be obtained from the TDRA field in the DCI indicating an entry in a higher layer configured table; Sec. 3.2; one example is shown in Table 1 assuming the largest actual repetition number is 3; each entry indicates PUSCH mapping type, the slot offset which indicates the slot index for each PUSCH repetition and SLIV for each repetition].
However, ZTE does not teach a plurality of multi-interval scheduling configurations … the scheduling message indicates one of the plurality of multi-interval scheduling configurations.
Hugl teaches:
wherein the method comprises sending, to the wireless communication device, configuration information specifying a plurality of multi-interval scheduling configurations … and wherein the scheduling message indicates one of the plurality of multi-interval scheduling configurations [Hugl: a plurality of multi-interval scheduling configurations == configuration of multiple parameter sets; 0104; Fig. 4B; at block 452 the eNB transmits to a UE a configuration of multiple parameter sets each set including a timing indication; the eNB determines at block 454 multiple uplink subframes that are to be scheduled to a UE; If at least one of the multiple uplink subframes is shortened then the parameter set is selected such that the corresponding timing indication indicates the identified one uplink subframe from among the multiple uplink subframes, and in the above examples this identified uplink subframe is always a shortened uplink subframe; finally at block 460 the eNB transmits to the UE a grant that schedules the UE for the multiple uplink subframes and that triggers the UE to transmit a reference signal and/or a CSI report, the grant further identifying the selected parameter set and which of the multiple uplink subframes are shortened].
It would have been obvious for POSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of ZTE and Hugl in order to reduce the (DL) control load [Hugl: 0031].
Regarding claims 65, 66, and 69, which recites the same claim limitations as those in claims 54, 55, and 58 above; the same rationale of rejection as presented in claims 54, 55, and 58 is applicable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 53, 57, 64, and 68 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues regarding claims 49 and 60 on pages 9-13 of the Remarks section that Huawei does not teach each of one or more entries in a predetermined table relating to certain “mapping types” and a certain “flag”.
Examiner’s Response:
For purposes of brevity, please see the Response to Arguments section in NFOA dated 4/6/26 (see p. 25-26), where the same argument has been previously addressed. For purposes of completeness, please also refer to FROA dated 10/17/25 (see p. 25-33).
Applicant argues regarding claim 49 on pages 14-15 of the Remarks section that the number of scheduled intervals is not indicated in a dedicated field distinct from a time resource assignment indication in ZTE.
Examiner’s Response:
For purposes of brevity, please refer to FROA dated 10/17/25 (see p. 31-32), where the same argument has been addressed. As for the latest amendment, which recites “wherein a time resource assignment indication in the scheduling message, distinct from the dedicated field, maps to a predetermined table of time resource allocations.” The claim limitation merely recites that a time resource assignment indication in the scheduling message is distinctly arrived at compared to a number of scheduled intervals indication in the scheduling message. ZTE teaches such distinctly arrived at a time resource assignment indication as well as a number of scheduled intervals indication.
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 SAAD A WAQAS whose telephone number is (571)270-5642. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 5:00 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/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marcus Smith can be reached at (571) 270-1096. 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.
SAAD A. WAQAS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2468
/Saad A. Waqas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights