DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 9, 19, and 22 and Marinier (US 2020/0196343 A1) on pages 11-12 in the response filed 7/21/2026 have been considered but are moot based on new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments including (receive system information comprising an index that indicates).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Initially, claim language includes indefinite issues described below in the 112(b) rejection of claim 30. Further, claim 30 recites “wherein to ascertain the lack of the valid dedicated uplink control channel resource configuration, the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to fail to receive signaling comprising the valid dedicated uplink control channel resource configuration, and wherein the uplink control channel configuration is different from the valid dedicated uplink control channel resource configuration”, however, support is not found in the disclosure. The closest to the above include para. 04 with “If the UE fails to decode Msg4, misses a Downlink (DL) grant, or correctly decodes Msg4 but discovers another UE's identity in the decoded Msg4, the UE does not send anything”, however, Msg4 is described as “Msg4 is transmitted by a Network Entity (NE) ... for contention resolution” [emphasis added], and the disclosure is silent as to a Msg4 being used to “ascertain the lack of the valid dedicated uplink control channel resource configuration”. Para. 04 also includes “Since a valid dedicated PUCCH resource has not yet been configured for the UE during the contention-based random access procedure due to initial access or due to Uplink (UL) timer expiration and release/reset of previously configured PUCCH resources, a method to determine a PUCCH resource for HARQ-ACK feedback in response to Msg4 needs to be developed” which ostensibly ties “valid dedicated uplink control channel resource configuration” with a random access procedure, para. 04 does not support the specific limitation above. Additionally, para. 05 merely describes HARQ-ACK feedback for Msg4 which also does not support the specific limitation above. Additionally, para. 32-38 variously describe: providing HARQ-ACK resource for Msg4 “during RACH procedure”; explicitly indicate PUCCH resources based on DCI; PUCCH resources based on a number of Msg3 transmissions; or merely describe using PUCCH resources as HARQ-ACK feedback to Msg4, none of which support the specific limitation above. Further, in looking to para. 53 and Fig. 8, the disclosure explicitly indicates “ascertaining” prior to receiving Msg4. Further, para. 49 explicitly discloses “a lack of a valid dedicated UL control channel resource” due to “the device not having a dedicated UL control channel resource, due to the device having an expired dedicated UL control channel resource because of UL timer expiration, due to release/reset of previously configured dedicated UL control channel resources” which do not support the specific limitation above, and the generic “due to any other reason” is also not considered to support the specific limitation above. Accordingly, the above subject matter is not considered to describe in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19, 22-23, 26, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 19: lines 17-21 includes “receive, based at least in part on a lack of a valid dedicated uplink control channel resource configuration at a user equipment (UE), the uplink control channel configuration, the device-specific physical resource block offset, and the cyclic shift information, the HARQ-ACK feedback on the uplink control channel in response to the downlink scheduling DCI” where it appears applicant’s amendments inadvertently introduced idiomatic issues as the disclosure is silent as to how the network equipment can determine a lack of a valid dedicated uplink control channel resource configuration at a user equipment to receive HARQ-ACK. Examination continued on the assumption the above should be similar to -receive, based at least in part on the downlink scheduling DCI, the uplink control channel configuration, the device-specific physical resource block offset, and the cyclic shift information, the HARQ-ACK feedback transmitted on the uplink control channel transmitted in response to a lack of a valid dedicated uplink control channel resource configuration at a user equipment (UE)- or -receive, based at least in part on the uplink control channel configuration, the device-specific physical resource block offset, and the cyclic shift information, the HARQ-ACK feedback on the uplink control channel in response to the downlink scheduling DCI-.
Regarding claim 22, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 19.
Regarding claim 23, the claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 19, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 19. Further, similar with 112(b) issues of claim 19, lines 2-5 includes “cause the NE to determine, in response to the lack of the valid dedicated uplink control channel resource configuration at the UE, the same number of symbols based at least in part on a cell-specific parameter” where it appears applicant’s amendments inadvertently introduced idiomatic issues as the disclosure is silent as to how the network equipment can determine a lack of a valid dedicated uplink control channel resource configuration at a user equipment to determine the same number of symbols. Examination continued on the assumption the above should be similar to -wherein the same number of symbols is based at least in part on a cell-specific parameter-.
Regarding claim 26, the claim, ultimately dependent upon claim 19, is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 19.
Regarding claim 30: the newly claimed limitation of 30 includes indefinite issues including “the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to fail to receive signaling” (line 3) where it is unclear how the UE processor is configured to cause the UE to fail any function, much less “fail to receive signaling”. Further, “fail to receive signaling comprising the valid dedicated uplink control channel resource configuration” is claimed along with “wherein the uplink control channel configuration is different from the valid dedicated uplink control channel resource configuration” rendering the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. The claim indicates a “lack” of “valid dedicated uplink control channel resource configuration” while at the same time sets a condition where the “valid dedicated uplink control channel resource configuration” is compared to / different from “uplink control channel configuration”. Notwithstanding the 112(a) issues indicated above, examination continued on the assumption some type of configuration is performed.
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, 6, 9, 14-15, 18-19, 22, 26-27, 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hooli et al. (US 2018/0324786 A1, all citations are supported by US Provisional Application No. 62/502,550, filed 5/5/2017) hereinafter Hooli in view of Marinier et al. (US 2020/0196343 A1, all citations are supported by US Provisional Application No. 62/519,585, filed 6/14/2017).
Regarding claim 1, Hooli teaches a user equipment (UE) for wireless
communication (user equipment (UE); para. 18 and Fig. 1), comprising: at least one memory (memory storing instructions; para. 108-109 and Fig. 6); and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and (processor executing instructions in memory; para. 109) configured to cause the UE to: receive system information comprising an index that indicates an uplink control channel configuration (UE receives uplink control channel / physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resource set index via system information; para. 56-57) of a predefined set of uplink control channel configurations (index identifies [predefined] a resource set of PUCCH resources; para. 56), wherein uplink control channel configuration comprises a starting symbol of an uplink control channel (different PUCCH resource indexes mapped to different symbols including first resource set mapped [starting symbol] to last symbol and second resource set mapped to second to last symbol; para. 47-48); ascertain a lack of a valid dedicated uplink control channel resource configuration (UE transmits scheduling request for uplink grant of resource to allow UE to transmit uplink to base station (BS); para. 27); receive downlink scheduling DCI comprising information for determining (indicated PUCCH resource type derived from downlink control information (DCI); para. 62) a device-specific physical resource block offset (PUCCH resources being device-specific; para. [28, 71], UE determines PUCCH resource set based on radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) [device-specific]; para. 57, PUCCH resource index indicates physical resource block (PRB) relative to [offset] PUCCH region starting point; para. 60) and cyclic shift information of a base sequence (PUCCH resource index indicates cyclic shift or orthogonal cover code (OCC) [at least suggesting base sequence for orthogonality]; para. 60) for hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) feedback (uplink control information (UCI) transmitted via PUCCH includes hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement-acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK); para. 26-27, transmitting HARQ-ACK feedback via PUCCH on PUCCH resources; para. [41, 59, 82, 102]); and transmit (transmitting HARQ-ACK feedback via PUCCH on PUCCH resources; para. [41, 59, 82, 102]), based at least in part on the lack of the valid dedicated uplink control channel resource configuration (UE receives uplink grant of resource to transmit uplink to BS; para. 27), the uplink control channel configuration (transmitting HARQ-ACK feedback via PUCCH on PUCCH resources; para. [41, 59, 82, 102]), the device-specific physical resource block offset (PUCCH resource index indicates PRB relative to [offset] PUCCH region starting point; para. 60, transmitting HARQ-ACK feedback via PUCCH on PUCCH resources; para. [41, 59, 82, 102], PUCCH resources being device-specific; para. [28, 71], UE determines PUCCH resource set based on RNTI [device-specific]; para. 57), and the cyclic shift information (transmitting HARQ-ACK feedback via PUCCH on PUCCH resources; para. [41, 59, 82, 102], PUCCH resource index indicates cyclic shift; para. 60), the HARQ-ACK feedback on the uplink control channel in response to the downlink scheduling DCI (transmitting HARQ-ACK feedback via PUCCH on PUCCH resources; para. [41, 59, 82, 102]).
While Hooli discloses long PUCCH with 7 symbols and short PUCCH with 1 or 2 symbols, Hooli does not explicitly disclose wherein the uplink control channel is from a set of uplink control channels with a same number of symbols.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Marinier teaches wherein the uplink control channel is from a set of uplink control channels with a same number of symbols (one transmission profile includes PUCCH over two symbols, another transmission profile includes PUCCH over one symbol; para. 150, multiple transmission profiles for UCI including table for short PUCCH and table for long PUCCH [set of PUCCH]; para. [125, 136, 141]).
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 Marinier to the system of Hooli, where Hooli’s reduced latency (para. 34) along with Marinier’s reliable control signaling (para. [127, 131]) improves user experience by enabling services with high reliability and low latency requirements such as ultra-reliable and low-latency communications (URLLC).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hooli and Marinier teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Hooli further teaches wherein the index indicates (UE receives uplink control channel including PUCCH resource set index; para. 56-57) a number of symbols in a predefined set of numbers of symbols in the predefined set of uplink control channel configurations (system information includes sub-carrier spacing; para. 60, sub-carrier spacing determines number of symbols; para. 30).
While Hooli discloses long PUCCH with 7 symbols and short PUCCH with 1 or 2 symbols and index determining PUCCH resources, Hooli does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to determine the number of symbols from the predefined set of numbers of symbols.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Marinier further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to determine the number of symbols from the predefined set of numbers of symbols (configuration of PUCCH resources include PUCCH duration in symbols including one or two symbols; para. 122, one transmission profile includes PUCCH over two symbols, another transmission profile includes PUCCH over one symbol; para. 150).
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 Marinier to the modified system of Hooli and Marinier, where Hooli and Marinier’s modified system along with Marinier’s reliable control signaling (para. [127, 131]) improves user experience by enabling services with high reliability and low latency requirements such as ultra-reliable and low-latency communications (URLLC).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Hooli and Marinier teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Hooli further teaches wherein the set of uplink control channels corresponds to a first type of uplink control channel that is different from a second type of uplink control channel (UE transmits request to transmit data to BS; para. 27, data service type includes enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB) with long PUCCH and Ultra-reliable and low-latency communications (URLLC) with short PUCCH; para. [22, 26-27]), and wherein the first type of uplink control channel and the second type of uplink control channel have different transmission durations (long PUCCH being longer than short PUCCH; para. 37-38 and Figs. 3A-3B).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Hooli and Marinier teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Hooli further teaches wherein to ascertain the lack of the valid dedicated uplink control channel resource configuration, the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to fail to receive signaling comprising the valid dedicated uplink control channel resource configuration (UE transmits scheduling request for uplink grant of resource to allow UE to transmit uplink BS [no grant yet thus fail to receive]; para. 27), and wherein the uplink control channel configuration is different from the valid dedicated uplink control channel resource configuration (UE transmits scheduling request for uplink grant of resource to allow UE to transmit uplink BS [no grant yet thus fail to receive]; para. 27, UE receives uplink control channel / physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resource set index via system information [unknown / non-existent configuration different from specified configuration]; para. 56-57).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Hooli and Marinier teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Hooli further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to determine the device-specific physical resource block offset based at least in part on a physical resource block offset indicated in the system information (UE receives uplink control channel / PUCCH resource set index via system information; para. 56-57, PUCCH resources being device-specific; para. [28, 71], UE determines PUCCH resource set based on RNTI [device-specific]; para. 57).
While Hooli discloses configuration via DCI, Hooli does not explicitly disclose a dynamically signaled value in the downlink scheduling DCI.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Marinier further teaches a dynamically signaled value in the downlink scheduling DCI (configuration of PUCCH resources include offset of PRB; para. 122-123, DCI includes transmission profile determined based on RNTI [device-specific]; para. 134).
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 Marinier to the modified system of Hooli and Marinier, where Hooli and Marinier’s modified system along with Marinier’s reliable control signaling (para. [127, 131]) improves user experience by enabling services with high reliability and low latency requirements such as ultra-reliable and low-latency communications (URLLC).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Hooli and Marinier teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Hooli does not explicitly disclose wherein the HARQ-ACK feedback comprises a single HARQ-ACK information bit.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Marinier further teaches disclose wherein the HARQ-ACK feedback comprises a single HARQ-ACK information bit (WTRU may transmit a HARQ-ACK bit per transport block and a PDSCH instance that may include data of the transport block; para. 105).
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 Marinier to the modified system of Hooli and Marinier, where Hooli and Marinier’s modified system along with Marinier’s reliable control signaling (para. [127, 131]) improves user experience by enabling services with high reliability and low latency requirements such as ultra-reliable and low-latency communications (URLLC).
Regarding claim 9, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Hooli and Marinier teaches the limitation of previous claim 14.
Hooli further teaches wherein the predefined set of numbers of symbols is based at least in part on a reference numerology indicated in the system information (system information includes sub-carrier spacing; para. 60, sub-carrier spacing determines number of symbols; para. 30).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Hooli and Marinier teaches the limitation of previous claim 9.
Hooli further teaches transmitting information of supported uplink control channel formats (data service type includes enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB) with long PUCCH and Ultra-reliable and low-latency communications (URLLC) with short PUCCH; para. [22, 26-27], UE transmits request of resources [at least suggesting transmitting information to indicate resources for type of long/short PUCCH based on type of data] to transmit data to BS; para. 27), wherein the supported uplink control channel formats comprise uplink control channel formats of different transmission durations (long PUCCH being longer than short PUCCH; para. 37-38 and Figs. 3A-3B).
Regarding claim 19, Hooli teaches a network entity (NE) for wireless communication (base station (BS); para. 18 and Fig. 1), comprising: at least one memory (memory storing instructions; para. 108-109 and Fig. 6); and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and (processor executing instructions in memory; para. 109) configured to cause the NE to: transmit system information comprising an index that indicates an uplink control channel configuration (BS transmits uplink control channel including physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resource set index via system information; para. 56-57) of a predefined set of uplink control channel configurations (index identifies [predefined] a resource set of PUCCH resources; para. 56), wherein the uplink control channel configuration comprises a starting symbol of an uplink control channel (different PUCCH resource indexes mapped to different symbols including first resource set mapped [starting symbol] to last symbol and second resource set mapped to second to last symbol; para. 47-48); transmit downlink scheduling DCI (BS signals downlink control information (DCI) indicating PUCCH resource type for uplink (UL) [scheduling]; para. 62) comprising information for determining a device-specific physical resource block offset (PUCCH resources being device-specific; para. [28, 71], UE determines PUCCH resource set based on radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) [device-specific]; para. 57, PUCCH resource index indicates physical resource block (PRB) relative to [offset] PUCCH region starting point; para. 60) and cyclic shift information of a base sequence (PUCCH resource index indicates cyclic shift or orthogonal cover code (OCC) [at least suggesting base sequence for orthogonality]; para. 60) for hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) feedback (uplink control information (UCI) transmitted via PUCCH includes hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement-acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK); para. 26-27, transmitting HARQ-ACK feedback via PUCCH on PUCCH resources; para. [41, 59, 82, 102]); and receive (receive HARQ-ACK feedback via PUCCH on PUCCH resources; para. [41, 59, 82, 102]), based at least in part on a lack of a valid dedicated uplink control channel resource configuration at a user equipment (UE) (UE receives uplink grant of resource to transmit uplink to BS; para. 27), the uplink control channel configuration (transmitting HARQ-ACK feedback via PUCCH on PUCCH resources; para. [41, 59, 82, 102]), the device-specific physical resource block offset (PUCCH resource index indicates PRB relative to [offset] PUCCH region starting point; para. 60, transmitting HARQ-ACK feedback via PUCCH on PUCCH resources; para. [41, 59, 82, 102], PUCCH resources being device-specific; para. [28, 71], UE determines PUCCH resource set based on RNTI [device-specific]; para. 57), and the cyclic shift information (transmitting HARQ-ACK feedback via PUCCH on PUCCH resources; para. [41, 59, 82, 102], PUCCH resource index indicates cyclic shift; para. 60), the HARQ-ACK feedback on the uplink control channel in response to the downlink scheduling DCI (transmitting HARQ-ACK feedback via PUCCH on PUCCH resources; para. [41, 59, 82, 102]).
While Hooli discloses long PUCCH with 7 symbols and short PUCCH with 1 or 2 symbols, Hooli does not explicitly disclose wherein the uplink control channel is from a set of uplink control channels with a same number of symbols.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Marinier teaches wherein the uplink control channel is from a set of uplink control channels with a same number of symbols (one transmission profile includes PUCCH over two symbols, another transmission profile includes PUCCH over one symbol; para. 150, multiple transmission profiles for UCI including table for short PUCCH and table for long PUCCH [set of PUCCH]; para. [125, 136, 141]).
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 Marinier to the system of Hooli, where Hooli’s reduced latency (para. 34) along with Marinier’s reliable control signaling (para. [127, 131]) improves user experience by enabling services with high reliability and low latency requirements such as ultra-reliable and low-latency communications (URLLC).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Hooli and Marinier teaches the limitation of previous claim 19.
Hooli further teaches wherein the index indicates (UE receives uplink control channel including PUCCH resource set index; para. 56-57) a number of symbols in a predefined set of numbers of symbols in the predefined set of uplink control channel configurations (system information includes sub-carrier spacing; para. 60, sub-carrier spacing determines number of symbols; para. 30).
Regarding claim 22, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 19.
Claim(s) 2, 10, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hooli in view of Marinier, further in view of Xiong et al. (US 2019/0393992 A1, all citations are supported by US Provisional Application No. 62/471,694 filed 3/15/2017 and 62/475,469 filed 3/23/2017) hereinafter Xiong, and further in view of Matsumura et al. (US 2020/0015223 A1) hereinafter Matsumura.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hooli and Marinier teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
While the combination of Hooli and Marinier variously disclose cell-specific configuration, subcarrier spacing / numerology, number of symbols of PUCCH, and long/short PUCCH, the combination of Hooli and Marinier does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to determine, in response to the lack of the valid dedicated uplink control channel resource configuration, the same number of symbols based at least in part on a cell-specific parameter indicated in the system information.
However, in the same field of endeavor Xiong teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to determine, in response to the lack of the valid dedicated uplink control channel resource configuration (receiving grant for resources for uplink transmission; para. 88), the same number of symbols based at least in part on a cell-specific parameter indicated in the system information (PUCCH resource configuration information includes whether one or two symbols are used for PUCCH; para. 40, HARQ-PUCCH resource based on HARQ determination parameter including cell ID; para. 100).
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 Xiong to the modified system of Hooli and Marinier, where Hooli and Marinier’s modified system along with Xiong’s long and short duration new radio (NR) PUCCH (para. 33) improves user satisfaction by enabling services requiring low latency and reliability, services with improved coverage, and services with differing priorities.
The combination of Hooli, Marinier, and Xiong does not explicitly disclose wherein the cell-specific parameter comprises a reference numerology.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Matsumura teaches wherein the cell-specific parameter comprises a reference numerology (number of symbols per slot for uplink control channels based on numerology / subcarrier spacing; para. [37, 47-50, 203], UE determines subcarrier spacing based on system information; para. [151-152, 261]).
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 Matsumura to the modified system of Hooli, Marinier, and Xiong, where Hooli, Marinier, and Xiong’s modified system along with Matsumura’s UCI mapping for long PUCCH (para. 56) improves user satisfaction by enabling services requiring low latency and reliability, and improved coverage.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Hooli and Marinier teaches the limitation of previous claim 19.
While the combination of Hooli and Marinier variously disclose cell-specific configuration, subcarrier spacing / numerology, number of symbols of PUCCH, and long/short PUCCH, the combination of Hooli and Marinier wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the NE to determine, in response to the lack of the valid dedicated uplink control channel resource configuration at the UE, the same number of symbols based at least in part on a cell-specific parameter indicated in the system information.
However, in the same field of endeavor Xiong teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the NE to determine, in response to the lack of the valid dedicated uplink control channel resource configuration at the UE (receiving grant [transmitting grant by BS] for resources for uplink transmission; para. 88), the same number of symbols based at least in part on a cell-specific parameter indicated in the system information (PUCCH resource configuration information includes whether one or two symbols are used for PUCCH; para. 40, HARQ-PUCCH resource based on HARQ determination parameter including cell ID; para. 100).
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 Xiong to the modified system of Hooli and Marinier, where Hooli and Marinier’s modified system along with Xiong’s long and short duration new radio (NR) PUCCH (para. 33) improves user satisfaction by enabling services requiring low latency and reliability, services with improved coverage, and services with differing priorities.
The combination of Hooli, Marinier, and Xiong does not explicitly disclose wherein the cell-specific parameter comprises a reference numerology.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Matsumura teaches wherein the cell-specific parameter comprises a reference numerology (number of symbols per slot for uplink control channels based on numerology / subcarrier spacing; para. [37, 47-50, 203], UE determines subcarrier spacing based on system information; para. [151-152, 261]).
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 Matsumura to the modified system of Hooli, Marinier, and Xiong, where Hooli, Marinier, and Xiong’s modified system along with Matsumura’s UCI mapping for long PUCCH (para. 56) improves user satisfaction by enabling services requiring low latency and reliability, and improved coverage.
Claim(s) 7, 16, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hooli in view of Marinier, and further in view of Xiong.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hooli and Marinier teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Hooli further teaches wherein the index indicates (UE receives uplink control channel including PUCCH resource set index; para. 56-57).
While the combination of Hooli and Marinier discloses cell group UCI transmission, the combination of Hooli and Marinier does not explicitly disclose a cell-specific physical resource block offset for the uplink control channel, and wherein the HARQ-ACK feedback is transmitted according to the cell-specific physical resource block offset.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Xiong teaches a cell-specific physical resource block offset for the uplink control channel (UE receives resource set information for HARQ-PUCCH resource set; para. 57 and Fig. 5, message including PUCCH configuration as function of cell specific UE id; para. [62, 72], HARQ-PUCCH resource configuration includes physical resource block (PRB) index (offset); para. [54,100]), and wherein the HARQ-ACK feedback is transmitted (UE receives resource set information to transmit HARQ-ACK feedback; para. 57-59) according to the cell-specific physical resource block offset (PUCCH configuration as function of cell specific UE id; para. [62, 72], HARQ-PUCCH resource configuration includes PRB index (offset); para. [54,100]).
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 Xiong to the modified system of Hooli and Marinier, where Hooli and Marinier’s modified system along with Xiong’s long and short duration new radio (NR) PUCCH (para. 33) improves user satisfaction by enabling services requiring low latency and reliability, services with improved coverage, and services with differing priorities.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Hooli and Marinier teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
While the combination of Hooli and Marinier variously disclose cell-specific configuration, cyclic shift / frequency hopping, the combination of Hooli and Marinier does not explicitly disclose a base sequence for the HARQ-ACK feedback.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Marinier teaches a base sequence for the HARQ-ACK feedback (hopping pattern [base sequence] for PUCCH based on PUCCH configuration; para. 120).
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 Marinier to the modified system of Hooli and Marinier, where Hooli and Marinier’s modified system along with Marinier’s reliable control signaling (para. [127, 131]) improves user experience by enabling services with high reliability and low latency requirements such as ultra-reliable and low-latency communications (URLLC).
While the combination of Hooli and Marinier variously disclose cell-specific configuration, and cyclic shift / frequency hopping, the combination of Hooli and Marinier does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to determine, based at least in part on cell-specific information, wherein the cell-specific information comprises at least one of a cell-specific scrambling identifier or a hopping identifier.
However, in the same field of endeavor Xiong teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to determine, based at least in part on cell-specific information (HARQ-PUCCH resource configuration based on cell ID / cell-specific parameters / Cell Radio Network Temporary Identifier (C-RNTI); para. [62, 66-67, 80), (HARQ-PUCCH resource configuration includes information for frequency hopping; para. [42, 194]), wherein the cell-specific information comprises at least one of a cell-specific scrambling identifier (scrambling seeds [ID] based on cell ID; para. 79, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference) or a hopping identifier.
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 Xiong to the modified system of Hooli and Marinier, where Hooli and Marinier’s modified system along with Xiong’s long and short duration new radio (NR) PUCCH (para. 33) improves user satisfaction by enabling services requiring low latency and reliability, services with improved coverage, and services with differing priorities.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hooli in view of Marinier, and further in view of Wu et al. (WO 2016/161629 A1) hereinafter Wu.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Hooli and Marinier teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
Hooli further teaches wherein the HARQ-ACK feedback is transmitted in response to the downlink message (HARQ-ACK transmitted in random access message 4 [in response to message 3 being uplink data]; para. 41).
While the combination of Hooli and Marinier discloses random access (RA), RA response, grants, and RNTI related to grants, Hooli does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: transmit a random access channel (RACH) preamble; receive, in response to the RACH preamble, a random access response (RAR) message comprising an uplink grant; transmit, based at least in part on the uplink grant, an uplink message comprising at least a device identity of the UE; and receive, in response to the uplink message, a downlink message based at least in part on the device identity of the UE.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wu teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: transmit a random access channel (RACH) preamble (UE transmits a random access channel (RACH) preamble; para. 72); receive, in response to the RACH preamble, a random access response (RAR) message comprising an uplink grant (UE receives grant in RACH response (RAR) including UL grant of MSG3; para. 72); transmit, based at least in part on the uplink grant, an uplink message comprising at least a device identity of the UE (UE transmits MSG3 including C-RNTI for contention resolution; para. 72); and receive, in response to the uplink message, a downlink message based at least in part on the device identity of the UE (BS transmits [UE receives] MSG4 with content resolution message and requiring HARQ-ACK feedback; para. 72).
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 Wu to the modified system of Hooli and Marinier, where Hooli and Marinier’s modified system along with Wu’s reduced signaling overhead (para. 64) improves the system by reducing resources for overhead.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yeo et al. (US 2022/0353026 A1) discloses a method and apparatus for transmitting uplink control signal in wireless cellular communication system.
Cao et al. (US 2018/0295651 A1) discloses flexible grant-free resource configuration signaling.
US Provisional Application No. 62/502,550 (Hooli) is included in the instant OA. US Provisional Application No. 62/519,585 (Marinier), made of record in the OA of 1/8/2026, and US Provisional Application Nos. 62/471,694 and 62/475,469 (Xiong), made of record in the Office Action of 12/20/2024, are not included in the instant OA.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE L PEREZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7348. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 am - 3 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSE L PEREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights