DETAILED ACTION
I. Introduction
This Office action addresses U.S. reissue application number 17/817,585 (“’585 Reissue Application” or “instant application”), having a filing date of 4 August 2022. Because the instant application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the statutory provisions of the America Invents Act (“AIA ”) will govern this proceeding.
The instant application is a reissue of U.S. Patent 10,735,160 (“’160 patent”) titled “TECHNIQUES AND APPARATUSES FOR ULTRA-RELIABLE LOW-LATENCY COMMUNICATIONS TRANSMISSION USING GRANT-FREE RESOURCES”, which issued on 4 August 2020 with claims 1-30 (“issued claims”). The application resulting in the ‘160 patent was filed on 8 August 2018 and assigned U.S. patent application number 16/058,334 (“’334 application”).
II. Other Proceedings
After review of Applicant’s statements as set forth in the instant application, and the examiner's independent review of the ‘160 patent itself and its prosecution history, the examiner has failed to locate any current ongoing litigation. The examiner has likewise failed to locate any previous reexaminations (ex parte or inter partes), supplemental examinations, or other post issuance proceedings.
III. Priority
The ‘334 application claims priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) to U.S. provisional application 62/554,316 (“provisional application”), filed 11 August 2017.
As a reissue application, the instant application is entitled to the priority date of the ‘160 patent, the patent being reissued. Thus, the instant reissue application has a priority date of at least 8 August 2018, the filing date of the ‘334 application, and could be as early as 11 August 2017, presuming the claim limitations are fully supported by the disclosure of the provisional application.
The priority date will be determined on a claim-by-claim basis, as necessary.
Because the effective filing date of the instant application is after March 16, 2013, the pre-AIA ‘First to Invent’ provisions do not apply. Instead, the AIA First Inventor to File (“AIA -FITF”) provisions will apply.
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 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.
IV. Claim Construction
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP § 2111 et seq.
Upon review of the original specification and prosecution history, the examiner has found no instances of lexicographic definitions, either express or implied, that are inconsistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the respective terms. Therefore, for the purposes of claim interpretation, the examiner concludes that there are no claim terms for which applicant is acting as their own lexicographer. See MPEP § 2111.01(IV).
If applicant intended lexicographic definitions that have not been identified as such by the examiner, they are asked to note the term and the location in the specification or prosecution history supporting the lexicographic definition in response to this Office action.
Additionally, upon review of the pending claims, the examiner finds no instances where the claim terms explicitly include functional language which invokes the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
V. Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), filed 24 March 2026, has been received and entered into the record. Since the Information Disclosure Statement complies with the provisions of MPEP § 609, the references cited therein have been considered by the examiner.
VI. Applicant’s Response
Applicant’s response (“Response”), filed 24 March 2026, has been received and entered into the record. The Response includes a new reissue declaration, remarks, and amendments to the claims and specification. Specifically, claims 1, 11, and 16-32 have been amended. Claims 1-32 remain pending in the application.
The amendment is objected to, however.
In reissue applications, amendments are governed by the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.173. In particular, § 1.173(g) requires that all amendments must be made relative to the issued patent. While it is of course helpful to receive change markings indicating the latest changes to the claims, rule 1.173 requires that claims 31 and 32, which are new relative to the issued patent, must be underlined in their entirety. Their status indicators should be “(New, Amended),” or “(New, Currently Amended),” or the like.
VII. Response to Arguments
The Response includes several arguments. These arguments are addressed in turn below.
Reissue Declaration
In view of the new reissue declaration, the pending objection to the declaration (and associated rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 251) are withdrawn.
Specification
In view of the amendment to the specification, the pending objection is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
In view of the amendment to claim 31, the pending objection is withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
In view of the amendment to claims 16, 19-22, 24-26, and 28, the pending claim rejections are withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Applicant argues that the amendment to claim 32, incorporating the limitation that the reception period includes a downlink occasion for a reception of the response to the uplink transmission, distinguishes over ZTE. The Office respectfully disagrees.
It is initially noted that the language of the new limitation does not preclude the reception period also including other occasions, and is therefore non-limiting.
In addition, in the context of the grant-free transmissions taught by ZTE, a POSITA would understand that the disclosure that retransmission can occur “at a predetermined time” would refer to a predetermined time (i.e., an amount of time, analogous to a retransmission timer) following the initial transmission. Any other interpretation would not make sense, since the retransmission is meant to address the situation where the initial transmission has not been (or presumed not to have been) received. The timing of the retransmission would therefore be dependent upon the time of the initial transmission.
Disclosure of the use of a retransmission timer would read on the claimed reception period, since a timer could be set to any amount of time, including an amount of time that is coincident with a downlink occasion.
The rejection is maintained.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant argues that the amendment to independent claims 1, 11, 17, and 27, incorporating the limitation that the reception period includes a first PDCCH occasion “for the reception indication” distinguishes over ZTE. The Office respectfully disagrees.
It is initially noted that, as noted in the rejection of record, the language of the limitation does not preclude the reception period also including other occasions, and is therefore non-limiting.
The amended limitation is that the system monitors for a reception indication in a reception period, where the reception period includes a first PDCCH occasion for the reception indication. It is unclear, however, how the newly added claim language serves to further limit the claims. Note that the amended limitation is “monitoring for a reception indication…”, so the amended language would seem to simply repeat language that already existed in the limitation.
The rejections are therefore maintained.
Recapture
Applicant argues that the incorporation of the limitation that the system monitors for a reception indication in a reception period, where the reception period includes a first PDCCH occasion for the reception indication serves to materially narrow the claims relative to the allegedly surrendered subject matter. The Office respectfully disagrees.
The Office notes that the surrendered subject matter concerns the claimed first PDCCH occasion, limiting it to the first PDCCH occasion following receipt of the L1 signal by the base station. As discussed above, it is unclear how the newly added claim language further limits the claims in any way, let alone with respect to the surrendered subject matter.
The rejections are therefore maintained.
VIII. Recapture under 35 U.S.C. § 251
In In re Clement, 131 F.3d at 1468-70, 45 USPQ2d at 1164-65, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit set forth a three-step test for recapture analysis. In North American Container, 415 F.3d at 1349, 75 USPQ2d at 1556, the court restated this test as follows:
We apply the recapture rule as a three-step process:
(1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims;
(2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and
(3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.
Step 1
With respect to step 1 (see MPEP § 1412.02(I)(A)), applicants seek to broaden the reissue claims by at least deleting/omitting the following limitations which are present in issued independent claims 1 and 17 of the ‘160 patent, but not in amended reissue claims 1 and 17 (paraphrased):
monitoring for a reception indication in response to transmission of an L1 signal in a reception period that includes a first physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) occasion occurring after a base station (BS) is to receive the L1 signal
Further regarding issued claim 1, the following limitations have been omitted from new reissue claim 32:
transmitting, on a grant-free resource in an ultra-reliable low-latency communications (URLLC) network, data and a layer 1 (L1) signal for identification of the UE; and
monitoring for a reception indication as a response to the L1 signal in a reception period occurring after transmission of the L1 signal on the grant-free resource, wherein the reception period includes a first physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) occasion occurring after a base station (BS) is to receive the L1 signal
Step 2
With respect to step 2 (see MPEP § 1412.02(I)(B)), there were several instances where applicants surrendered subject matter during prosecution of the original application (which became the patent to be reissued). Note that the "original application" includes the patent family’s entire prosecution history. MBO Laboratories, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 602 F.3d 1306, 94 USPQ2d 1598 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
During prosecution of the ‘334 application, applicant filed a response to a non-final rejection on 2 April 2020. Therein, applicant amended independent claims 1 and 18 (which issued as claims 1 and 17 respectively) to include the following limitations, and argued that the new limitations distinguished over the prior art of record (see pages 10-11 of the response):
monitoring for a reception indication as a response to the L1 signal in a reception period occurring after transmission of the L1 signal on the grant-free resource, wherein the reception period includes a first physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) occasion occurring after a base station (BS) is to receive the reception indicator (emphasis added to indicate the amended language)
The claims were subsequently allowed on 20 May 2020. An Examiner’s Amendment modified the last limitation to cite reception of the L1 signal, instead of reception of the reception indicator.
As noted in MPEP § 1412.02, “If an original patent claim limitation now being omitted or broadened in the present reissue application was originally relied upon by applicant in the original application to make the claims allowable over the art, the omitted limitation relates to subject matter previously surrendered by applicant. The reliance by applicant to define the original patent claims over the art can be by presentation of new/amended claims to define over the art, or an argument/statement by applicant that a limitation of the claim(s) defines over the art.”
With respect to whether applicant surrendered any subject matter, it is to be noted that a patent owner (reissue applicant) is bound by the argument that applicant relied upon to overcome, for example, an art rejection in the original application for the patent to be reissued, regardless of whether the Office adopted the argument in allowing the claims. Greenliant Systems, Inc. v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 1271, 103 USPQ2d 1951, 1958 (Fed. Cir. 2012). As pointed out by the court, "[i]t does not matter whether the examiner or the Board adopted a certain argument for allowance; the sole question is whether the argument was made." Id.
Given the above-cited surrendered subject matter, and in consideration of the subject matter omitted in amended independent claims 1 and 17, and new claim 32 (cited above in step 1 of the analysis), the Office concludes that the following broader aspects of reissue claims 1 and 17 are related to the subject matter surrendered during original prosecution of the ‘334 application:
monitoring for a reception indication as a response to the L1 signal in a reception period occurring after transmission of the L1 signal on the grant-free resource, wherein the reception period includes a first physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) occasion occurring after a base station (BS) is to receive the L1 signal
In this case, the surrendered limitation regarding the reception period has been broadened.
Similarly, the Office concludes that the following broader aspects of reissue claim 32 are related to the subject matter surrendered during original prosecution of the ‘334 application:
monitoring for a reception indication as a response to the L1 signal in a reception period occurring after transmission of the L1 signal on the grant-free resource, wherein the reception period includes a first physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) occasion occurring after a base station (BS) is to receive the L1 signal
In this case, the surrendered limitation regarding the reception period has been broadened from new reissue claim 32.
Step 3
With respect to step 3 (see MPEP § 1412.02(I)(C)), the Office has reviewed and analyzed amended independent claims 1 and 17, and concluded that there has been no material narrowing of the reissue claims in such a way that recapture has been avoided. Although the limitation that the reception period includes a first physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) occasion has been retained, this limitation fails to materially narrow the claim, since the limitation does not limit the claimed reception period, because the claim language is broad enough that the reception period could include any PDCCH occasion; it is not limited to the first PDCCH occasion after the base station is to receive the L1 signal. In addition, the Office notes that the retained portion of the surrendered subject matter fails to distinguish over the prior art of record, and so its inclusion fails to avoid recapture. Therefore, in view of the surrendered subject matter that has been broadened in the reissue claims, claims 1 and 17 are subject to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 251.
Dependent claims 2-10, 18-26, and 31 are likewise rejected, as they fail to restore all of the surrendered subject matter to the claims.
Similarly, the Office has concluded that there has been no material narrowing of new reissue claim 32 in such a way that recapture has been avoided. Although the claim has been narrowed by the inclusion of a retransmission step, and that the reception period includes a downlink occasion, this narrowing is unrelated to the surrendered subject matter. In addition, the Office notes that the retained portion of the surrendered subject matter fails to distinguish over the prior art of record, and so its inclusion fails to avoid recapture. Therefore, in view of the surrendered subject matter that has been broadened in the reissue claims, claim 32 is subject to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 251.
Claims 1-10, 17-26, 31, and 32 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 251 as being an impermissible recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. See Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The reissue application contains claim(s) that are broader than the issued patent claims. The record of the application for the patent shows that the broadening aspect (in the reissue) relates to claimed subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application. Accordingly, the narrow scope of the claims in the patent was not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application.
IX. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
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.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 31, this claim includes the limitation that the reception period is associated with a retransmission timer that is based at least in part on an indication provided via radio resource control (RRC) signaling. However, parent claim 1 includes the limitation that the reception period includes a first physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) occasion for the reception indication.
Applicant’s specification seems to disclose that each of these claim limitations regarding the reception period refers to alternative embodiments. Specifically, col. 16, lines 35-48 reads
PNG
media_image1.png
272
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 31 therefore includes the features of two alternative embodiments, rendering the claim indefinite.
X. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 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 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Basic Grant-Free Transmission for URLLC” by ZTE, ZTE Microelectronics (“ZTE”).
Claim 32
Regarding claim 32, ZTE discloses a method of wireless communications performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising:
a) transmitting, on a grant-free resource, an uplink transmission (see disclosure of grant-free uplink transmission, page 3, Section 4 HARQ for grant-free transmission, second paragraph), and
b) retransmitting the uplink transmission in response to not receiving a response to uplink transmission in a reception period (see disclosure that in the case where the gNB fails to detect anything, the UE should be able to automatically trigger a retransmission at a predefined time, page 3, Section 4 HARQ for grant-free transmission, sixth paragraph citing Case-3);
c) wherein the reception period includes a downlink occasion for a reception of the response to the uplink transmission (see disclosure that the HARQ feedback [i.e., reception indication] can be transmitted in DCI, which is a component of the PDCCH, page 3, Section 4 HARQ for grant-free transmission, fifth paragraph citing Case-2; the Office also notes that requiring that the reception period includes a downlink occasion does not preclude the reception period also including other occasions, and is thus a non-limiting feature).
XI. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1-9, 11-14, 16-25, and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Basic Grant-Free Transmission for URLLC” by ZTE, ZTE Microelectronics (“ZTE”) in view of “Scheduling for URLLC” by Huawei, HiSilicon (“Huawei[1]”).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, ZTE discloses a method of wireless communications performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising:
a) transmitting, on a grant-free resource for an ultra-reliable low-latency communications (URLLC) transmission, data and a signal for identification of the UE (see disclosure of the details of grant-free uplink transmission, including the use of URLLC, and the transmission of data and signals for UE identification, page 3, Section 4 HARQ for grant-free transmission, second paragraph); and
b) monitoring for a reception indication as a response to the signal in a reception period occurring after transmission of the signal on the grant-free resource (see disclosure that in the case where the gNB fails to detect anything, the UE should be able to automatically trigger a retransmission at a predefined time, page 3, Section 4 HARQ for grant-free transmission, sixth paragraph citing Case-3);
c) wherein the reception period includes a first physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) occasion for the reception indication (see disclosure that the HARQ feedback [i.e., reception indication] can be transmitted in DCI, which is a component of the PDCCH, page 3, Section 4 HARQ for grant-free transmission, fifth paragraph citing Case-2; the Office also notes that requiring that the reception period includes a first PDDCH does not preclude the reception period also including other occasions, and is thus a non-limiting feature).
To the extent that ZTE fails to explicitly disclose that the reception indication is transmitted in a first PDCCH occasion, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the ‘160 patent to do so, in order to maximize the rate of data transfer, which is desirable in wireless communications systems.
ZTE does not explicitly disclose that the signal for identification of the UE is a layer 1 (L1) signal.
Huawei[1], however, explicitly discloses that in grant-free URLLC transmissions, the UE activity/identity can be detected by the gNB via layer 1 (L1) signals in the form of pilot signals (see Section 2.1 Grant-free solution for URLLC, page 2, fifth paragraph discussing case 1).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the ‘160 patent to incorporate Huawei[1]’s teaching of the use of layer 1 signals in the form of pilot signals to identify the UEs into ZTE’s disclosed method of URLLC communication, since both references are concerned with communication protocols for grant-free transmission in URLLC environments, and because grant-free communication requires a mechanism for base stations to identify the UE that sends a transmission so that acknowledgment signals can be sent, and there are a finite number of mechanisms for conveying such identification information to the base station.
Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, ZTE discloses a method of wireless communications performed by a base station, comprising:
a) receiving, for an ultra-reliable low-latency communications (URLLC) transmission, a signal on a grant-free resource (see disclosure of the details of grant-free uplink transmission, including the use of URLLC, and the transmission of data and signals for UE identification, page 3, Section 4 HARQ for grant-free transmission, second paragraph);
b) identifying a user equipment (UE) that transmitted on the grant-free resource based on the signal (see disclosure that for Case-1 and Case-2, the gNB succeeds in detecting the UE identity, page 3, Section 4 HARQ for grant-free transmission, third paragraph); and
c) transmitting, to the UE, a reception indication as a response to the signal in a reception period occurring after reception of the signal (see disclosure that for Case-1, ACK feedback is transmitted from the gNB, and for Case-2, NACK feedback is transmitted from the gNB, page 3, Section 4 HARQ for grant-free transmission, fourth and fifth paragraphs);
d) wherein the reception indication is transmitted in a first physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) occasion, for the reception indication, following the reception of the signal (see disclosure that the HARQ feedback [i.e., reception indication] can be transmitted in DCI, which is a component of the PDCCH, page 3, Section 4 HARQ for grant-free transmission, fifth paragraph citing Case-2).
To the extent that ZTE fails to explicitly disclose that the reception indication is transmitted in a first PDCCH occasion, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the ‘160 patent to do so, in order to maximize the rate of data transfer, which is desirable in wireless communications systems.
ZTE does not explicitly disclose that the signal for identification of the UE is a layer 1 (L1) signal.
Huawei[1], however, explicitly discloses that in grant-free URLLC transmissions, the UE activity/identity can be detected by the gNB via layer 1 (L1) signals in the form of pilot signals (see Section 2.1 Grant-free solution for URLLC, page 2, fifth paragraph discussing case 1).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the ‘160 patent to incorporate Huawei[1]’s teaching of the use of layer 1 signals in the form of pilot signals to identify the UEs into ZTE’s disclosed method of URLLC communication, since both references are concerned with communication protocols for grant-free transmission in URLLC environments, and because grant-free communication requires a mechanism for base stations to identify the UE that sends a transmission so that acknowledgment signals can be sent, and there are a finite number of mechanisms for conveying such identification information to the base station.
Claim 17
Regarding claim 17, ZTE discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising:
a) one or more memories (inherent in a computerized UE); and
b) one or more processors (inherent in a computerized UE), based at least in part on information stored in the one or more memories, configured to:
i) transmit, on a grant-free resource for an ultra-reliable low-latency communications (URLLC) transmission, data and a signal for identification of the UE (see disclosure of the details of grant-free uplink transmission, including the use of URLLC, and the transmission of data and signals for UE identification, page 3, Section 4 HARQ for grant-free transmission, second paragraph); and
ii) monitor for a reception indication as a response to the signal in a reception period occurring after transmission of the signal on the grant-free resource (see disclosure that in the case where the gNB fails to detect anything, the UE should be able to automatically trigger a retransmission at a predefined time, page 3, Section 4 HARQ for grant-free transmission, sixth paragraph citing Case-3);
iii) wherein the reception period includes a first physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) occasion for the reception indication (see disclosure that the HARQ feedback [i.e., reception indication] can be transmitted in DCI, which is a component of the PDCCH, page 3, Section 4 HARQ for grant-free transmission, fifth paragraph citing Case-2; the Office also notes that requiring that the reception period includes a first PDDCH does not preclude the reception period also including other occasions, and is thus a non-limiting feature).
To the extent that ZTE fails to explicitly disclose that the reception indication is transmitted in a first PDCCH occasion, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the ‘160 patent to do so, in order to maximize the rate of data transfer, which is desirable in wireless communications systems.
ZTE does not explicitly disclose that the signal for identification of the UE is a layer 1 (L1) signal.
Huawei[1], however, explicitly discloses that in grant-free URLLC transmissions, the UE activity/identity can be detected by the gNB via layer 1 (L1) signals in the form of pilot signals (see Section 2.1 Grant-free solution for URLLC, page 2, fifth paragraph discussing case 1).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the ‘160 patent to incorporate Huawei[1]’s teaching of the use of layer 1 signals in the form of pilot signals to identify the UEs into ZTE’s disclosed method of URLLC communication, since both references are concerned with communication protocols for grant-free transmission in URLLC environments, and because grant-free communication requires a mechanism for base stations to identify the UE that sends a transmission so that acknowledgment signals can be sent, and there are a finite number of mechanisms for conveying such identification information to the base station.
Claim 27
Regarding claim 27, ZTE discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a base station, comprising:
a) one or more memories (inherent in a computerized base station); and
b) one or more processors (inherent in a computerized base station), based at least in part on information stored in the one or more memories, configured to:
i) receive, for an ultra-reliable low-latency communications (URLLC) transmission, a signal on a grant-free resource (see disclosure of the details of grant-free uplink transmission, including the use of URLLC, and the transmission of data and signals for UE identification, page 3, Section 4 HARQ for grant-free transmission, second paragraph);
ii) identify a user equipment (UE) that transmitted on the grant-free resource based on the signal (see disclosure that for Case-1 and Case-2, the gNB succeeds in detecting the UE identity, page 3, Section 4 HARQ for grant-free transmission, third paragraph); and
iii) transmit, to the UE, a reception indication as a response to the signal in a reception period occurring after reception of the signal (see disclosure that for Case-1, ACK feedback is transmitted from the gNB, and for Case-2, NACK feedback is transmitted from the gNB, page 3, Section 4 HARQ for grant-free transmission, fourth and fifth paragraphs);
iv) wherein the reception indication is transmitted in a first physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) occasion, for the reception indication, following the reception of the signal (see disclosure that the HARQ feedback [i.e., reception indication] can be transmitted in DCI, which is a component of the PDCCH, page 3, Section 4 HARQ for grant-free transmission, fifth paragraph citing Case-2).
To the extent that ZTE fails to explicitly disclose that the reception indication is transmitted in a first PDCCH occasion, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the ‘160 patent to do so, in order to maximize the rate of data transfer, which is desirable in wireless communications systems.
ZTE does not explicitly disclose that the signal for identification of the UE is a layer 1 (L1) signal.
Huawei[1], however, explicitly discloses that in grant-free URLLC transmissions, the UE activity/identity can be detected by the gNB via layer 1 (L1) signals in the form of pilot signals (see Section 2.1 Grant-free solution for URLLC, page 2, fifth paragraph discussing case 1).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the ‘160 patent to incorporate Huawei[1]’s teaching of the use of layer 1 signals in the form of pilot signals to identify the UEs into ZTE’s disclosed method of URLLC communication, since both references are concerned with communication protocols for grant-free transmission in URLLC environments, and because grant-free communication requires a mechanism for base stations to identify the UE that sends a transmission so that acknowledgment signals can be sent, and there are a finite number of mechanisms for conveying such identification information to the base station.
Claims 2 and 18
Regarding claims 2 and 18, Huawei[1] additionally teaches starting a retransmission timer in connection with transmission of the data and the L1 signal, wherein the reception period is shorter than the interval defined by the retransmission timer (see disclosure that in the case that the gNB can neither identify the UEs nor decode the data, the gNB may not be able to send any feedback to the UE, and that the UE then needs to perform retransmission on subsequent UL transmission resources after the expiration of a back off [retransmission] timer, as the UE assumes that the first transmission attempt was unsuccessful, Section 2.1 Grant-free solution for URLLC, page 2, sixth paragraph discussing case 2).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the ‘160 patent to use a retransmission timer whose interval is longer than the period in which an acknowledgement signal from the gNB would be expected, since this would allow the UE to retransmit the data only upon concluding that the first data transmission was not successfully received by the gNB.
Claims 3 and 19
Regarding claims 3 and 19, ZTE additionally teaches that the reception indication signals to the UE that the UE was identified as transmitting on the grant-free resource (see disclosure of HARQ feedback from the gNB to the UE upon the gNB successfully detecting the UE identity, thus indicating that the UE was identified as the device transmitting the URLLC data over the grant-free resource, Section 4 HARQ for grant-free transmission).
Claims 4, 16, and 20
Regarding claims 4, 16, and 20, ZTE additionally teaches that when the reception indication is not received in the reception period, the L1 signal is retransmitted in a next available resource after the reception period based at least in part on the reception indication not being received in the reception period (see disclosure that in the case where the gNB fails to detect anything, the UE should be able to automatically trigger a retransmission at a predefined time, page 3, Section 4 HARQ for grant-free transmission, sixth paragraph citing Case-3).
Claims 5 and 21
Regarding claims 5 and 21, ZTE additionally teaches that the reception indication is received in the reception period, and wherein the UE monitors for an uplink grant associated with transmitting the data in an interval defined by a retransmission timer (see disclosure that for Case-2, the NACK feedback can be transmitted with a UL grant, page 3, Section 4 HARQ for grant-free transmission, fifth paragraph citing Case-2; see also disclosure that when the incoming packet exceeds the maximum packet size for the grant-free resource, the UE transmits the SR/BSR and then monitors for a UL grant from the gNB, page 3, Section 4 HARQ for grant-free transmission, third from last paragraph citing Option-1).
Claims 6, 12, 22, and 28
Regarding claims 6, 12, 22, and 28, ZTE additionally teaches the reception indication being received as a response to the L1 signal before an acknowledgement/negative acknowledgement (ACK/NACK) of the data transmitted on the grant-free resource (see disclosure that when base station gNB fails to detect a transmission, no feedback is provided to the UE, which is an implicit transmission of a reception indication signaling the incorrect reception of the L1 control signal, and that the implicit transmission occurs prior to any decoding of URLLC data and so prior to the transmission of any ACK/NACK to the UE, page 3, Section 4 HARQ for grant-free transmission, sixth paragraph citing Case-3).
Claims 7 and 23
Regarding claims 7 and 23, ZTE additionally teaches that the reception period is a monitoring occasion immediately succeeding transmission of the L1 signal (see disclosure that the UE monitors for HARQ feedback during the period of the retransmission timer, which is activated immediately after transmission of the L1 signal, page 3, Section 4 HARQ for grant-free transmission, fourth through sixth paragraphs).
Claims 8, 13, 24, and 29
Regarding claims 8, 13, 24, and 29, ZTE additionally teaches the reception indication being received in an empty grant which does not assign uplink resources to the UE, and wherein the L1 signal comprises a scheduling request or a demodulation reference signal (see disclosure that the reception indication [i.e., HARQ feedback] might be received in an empty grant [i.e., without an UL grant]; see also disclosure that the L1 signal is embodied in a demodulation reference signal [i.e., DMRS], page 3, Section 4 HARQ for grant-free transmission, fifth paragraph citing Case-2; see also disclosure that the L1 signal can be embodied in a scheduling request [i.e., SR], page 3, Section 4 HARQ for grant-free transmission, third from last paragraph citing Option-1).
Claims 9, 14, 25, and 30
Regarding claims 9, 14, 25, and 30, ZTE additionally teaches that the reception indication is received based at least in part on a network configuration relating to providing the reception indication as a response for a grant-free resource transmission (see disclosure that the UE is configured to monitor for a reception indication [i.e., HARQ feedback] indicating the reception of the L1 signal and/or data based upon network configuration information, page 3, Section 4 HARQ for grant-free transmission, fourth through sixth paragraphs).
Claims 10, 15, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Basic Grant-Free Transmission for URLLC” by ZTE, ZTE Microelectronics (“ZTE”) in view of “Scheduling for URLLC” by Huawei, HiSilicon (“Huawei[1]”) as applied to claims 1, 11, 17, and 27 above, and further in view of “HARQ design for UL URLLC” by Huawei, HiSilicon (“Huawei[2]”).
Claims 10, 15, and 26
Regarding claims 10, 15, and 26, ZTE and Huawei[1] disclose a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), by a base station, and an apparatus substantially as claimed.
Neither ZTE nor Huawei[1] explicitly discloses retransmitting the L1 signal prior to expiration of a retransmission timer associated with the transmitting.
Huawei[2], however, teaches retransmitting the L1 signal prior to expiration of a retransmission timer associated with the transmitting (see disclosure that one scheme is to continuously perform initial and retransmissions without waiting for a HARQ ACK/NACK feedback in between, page 2, section 2 Discussion, fifth paragraph).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the ‘160 patent to retransmit the L1 signal prior to the expiration of a retransmission timer associated with the transmitting, since this would significantly reduce the requirements on the error detection probabilities for both UE activity and data detections (see page 3, section 2.1.1 URLLC with grant-free, second to last paragraph).
XII. 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.
In accordance with MPEP § 1406, the examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited or of record in the original prosecution of the ‘160 patent. Applicants are reminded that a listing of the information cited or of record in the original prosecution of the ‘160 patent need not be resubmitted in this reissue application unless Applicant(s) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this reissue application.
Applicant(s) are reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR § 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which ‘160 patent is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, other post-grant proceedings in the Office, and litigation.
Applicant(s) are further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant(s) are also reminded that any amendments to the claims must comply with the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph, having clear support and antecedent basis in the specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke S. Wassum whose telephone number is (571) 272-4119. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 AM-5 PM, alternate Fridays off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Fuelling can be reached on 571-270-1367. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-9900.
In addition, INFORMAL or DRAFT communications may be faxed directly to the examiner at 571-273-4119. Such communications must be clearly marked as INFORMAL, DRAFT or UNOFFICIAL.
Patent Center
Patent Center is available to all users for electronic filing and management of patent applications. For more information, please visit the Patent Center information page at www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center.
/LUKE S WASSUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/ANGELA M LIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 /MF/ Michael FuellingSupervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
lsw
20 April 2026
Prosecution Insights