DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed on 03/04/2026 has been entered and made of record.
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 .
Claim Status
No claim is/are amended.
No new claim is/are added.
Claims 37-39, 41-44, 46-49, 51-54 and 56 are pending for examination.
Applicant Argument
Applicant’s response has been fully considered. Below are applicant’s main arguments and examiner’s response to those arguments:
Applicant’s argument: (remark pages 6-9), filed on 03/04/2026, with respect to claims 37, 42, 47, and 52, ‘Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection on the basis that combination of Yeo, Xiong, Wong, Hosseini, and Tang does not disclose or suggest all recitations of independent Claims 37, 42, 47, and 52 … the allowance of which is respectfully requested’.
Examiner’s response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, examiner would like to mention that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Wong teaches a single TB across multiple slots and each PUSCHs having CBs grouped into a single CBG (Wong: [0019], [0058], [0059], [0081]). Hosseini teaches schedule a single TB across multiple PUSCHs (Hosseini: [FIG.2], [0128]). Therefore, combination of Wong and Hosseini teaches ‘schedule a single transport block (TB) across multiple physical uplink shared channels (PUSCHs) each of the multiple PUSCHs having code blocks (CBs) grouped into a single code block group (CBG)’.
Applicant’s arguments (remark pages 6-10), filed on 03/04/2026, with respect to claims 37-39, 41-44, 46-49, 51-54 and 56 have been considered but are not convincing. The claim rejections under USC § 103 are not withdrawn.
This Office Action is made Final.
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.
Claims 37-39, 41-44 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeo et al. (US 20200228251 A1), hereinafter “Yeo”, in view of Xiong et al. (US 20210250887 A1), hereinafter “Xiong”, in view of Wong et al. (US 20220086873 A1), hereinafter “Wong”, and in view of Hosseini et al. (US 20210044385 A1), hereinafter “Hosseini”.
Per claim 37 and 42:
Regarding claim 37, Yeo teaches ‘A wireless device (WD)’ (Yeo: [FIG.11]: “Terminal”); ‘configured to communicate with a network node’ (Yeo: [FIG.9]: “Terminal” communication with “Base station”); ‘the WD comprising: a radio interface’ (Yeo: [FIG.11]: “Terminal reception unit”, “Terminal transmission unit”; [0158]: “a radio channel”);
‘configured to:
receive a configuration of a hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) feedback group size from the network node’ (Yeo: [FIG.4], [FIG.9]: Step 9-05: “Base station” to “Terminal”: “HARQ configuration information”; [0123]: “If HARQ-ACK information is expressed in CBG units, information on the maximum number of CBGs per TB or the number of CBGs per TB, or information on the number of HARQ-ACK bits per TB”; may receive HARQ-ACK feedback group size from the network node);
‘receive a downlink transmission scheduled by a downlink control information (DCI) message from the network node’ (Yeo: [FIG.9]: Step 9-10: “Scheduling information”; [0124]: “The terminal may receive the scheduling information via DCI”; Step 9-10: “Downlink data”);
‘processing circuitry’ (Yeo: [FIG.11]: “Terminal processing unit”);
‘generate HARQ-ACK feedback of the size determined by a feedback group size for the downlink transmission’ (Yeo: [FIG.4], [FIG.5], [FIG.6], [FIG.9]: Step 9-25: “Generate HARQ feedback information”; [0127]: “The terminal may generate HARQ feedback information based on the HARQ configuration information”; [0123]: “If HARQ-ACK information is expressed in CBG units, information on the maximum number of CBGs per TB or the number of CBGs per TB, or information on the number of HARQ-ACK bits per TB”; [0104]-[0106]: generate HARQ-ACK feedback of the feedback group size determined by HARQ configuration information);
‘transmit generated HARQ-ACK feedback to the network node’ (Yeo: [FIG.9]: Step: 9-35: “Terminal” to “Base station”: “Transmit HARQ feedback information”);
Yeo does not expressly teach, but Xiong in the same field of endeavor teaches ‘a downlink transmission over multiple slots’ (Xiong: [FIG.5]: “PDSCH”, one TB spans four slots; [0055]: “slot aggregation can be employed and one transport block (TB) may span multiple slots”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Xiong’s teaching with that of Yeo in order to support system operating at above 52.6 GHz carrier frequency with long transmission duration (Xiong: [0002]: “methods for long transmission duration for systems operating at above 52.6 GHz carrier frequency”).
Combination of Yeo and Xiong does not expressly teaches, but Wong in the same field of endeavor teaches ‘schedule a single transport block (TB) across multiple physical uplink shared channels (PUSCHs) each of the multiple PUSCHs having code blocks (CBs) grouped into a single code block group (CBG)’ (Wong: [0019]: “FIG. 6 shows a second example of a single TB PUSCH transmission, where Type B mapping is used and the TB extends beyond the slot boundary”, a single TB across multiple slots (PUSCHs); [0058]: “PUSCH slot aggregation is introduced where a PUSCH Transport Block (TB) is repeated over multiple slots”; [0059]: “a PUSCH repetition can cross slot boundary as shown in an example in FIG. 4. Here a 4× PUSCH mini-slot repetition starts at time t.sub.1, which is the 8.sup.th symbol of Slot n thereby leaving only 7 symbols for PUSCH repetitions. Hence, the repetitions occupies two slots, where 3 PUSCH repetitions are in Slot n and the last PUSCH repetition is in Slot n+1”; one TB over multiple slots (PUSCHs); [0081]: “In Rel-15 NR, a TB such as a PUSCH can be divided into multiple Code Blocks (CBs) where each CB contains its own CRC. A Code Block Group (CBG) is formed from at least one CB. This is beneficial because the receiver could indicate precisely which CBG contains errors and thus requires retransmission, thereby avoiding the transmitter (e.g. the UE) having to retransmit the entire TB”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wong’s teaching with that of combination of Yeo and Xiong in order to improve the reliability of PUSCH reception (Wong: [0050]-[0055]: “High reliability can be achieved by … Repetition: The URLLC transmission can be repeated”).
Moreover, Hosseini in the same field of endeavor teaches schedule a single TB over multiple PUSCHs (Hosseini: [FIG.2]: “DCI”, “PUSCH1” … “PUSCHN”; [0128]: “a single instance of DCI may be configured for scheduling uplink resources for a transport block over multiple PUSCH instances (e.g., multiple PUSCH transmissions corresponding to a single TB)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hosseini’s teaching with that of combination of Yeo, Xiong and Wong in order to support more reliable communications (Hosseini: [0007]: “By applying the described techniques for uplink repetition, a wireless communications system may support more reliable communications”).
Regarding claim 42, claim 42 recites the method implemented by the WD of Claim 37 (see rejection of claim 37 above).
Per claim 38 and 43:
Regarding claim 38, combination of Yeo, Xiong, Wong and Hosseini teaches the WD of Claim 37 (discussed above).
Yeo teaches ‘wherein the HARQ-ACK feedback is provided per code block group (CBG) when the WD is configured with CBG retransmission’ (Yeo: [0095]: “The HARQ-ACK information of the PDSCH … may be HARQ-ACK information in units of CBG in the case where CBG unit retransmission and feedback are configured”).
Regarding claim 43, claim 43 recites the method implemented by the WD of Claim 38 (see rejection of claim 38 above).
Per claim 39 and 44:
Regarding claim 39, combination of Yeo, Xiong, Wong and Hosseini teaches the WD of Claim 37 (discussed above).
Yeo teaches ‘wherein code blocks (CB) of a single transport block (TB) are grouped into code block groups (CBGs)’ (Yeo: [FIG.4]; [0089]: “the TB may be grouped according to the following rules in order to configure M CBGs”; [0093]: “one TB may include maximum 4 CBGs”).
Regarding claim 44, claim 44 recites the method implemented by the WD of Claim 39 (see rejection of claim 39 above).
Per claim 41 and 46:
Regarding claim 41, combination of Yeo, Xiong, Wong and Hosseini teaches the WD of Claim 37 (discussed above).
Yeo teaches ‘wherein code blocks, CBs, are grouped into a single code block group, CBG’ (Yeo: [FIG.4]; [0089]-[0093]: may group CBs into a single CBG if M=1).
Combination of Yeo and Xiong does not expressly teach, but Wong teaches ‘transmitted in one or more PUSCHs’ (Wong: [FIG.7]; [0058]: “PUSCH slot aggregation is introduced where a PUSCH Transport Block (TB) is repeated over multiple slots”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wong’s teaching with that of combination of Yeo and Xiong in order to improve the reliability of PUSCH reception (Wong: [0050]-[0055]: “High reliability can be achieved by … Repetition: The URLLC transmission can be repeated”).
Regarding claim 46, claim 46 recites the method implemented by the WD of Claim 41 (see rejection of claim 41 above).
Claims 47-49, 51-54 and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination of Yeo, Wong and Hossein, and in view of Tang et al. (US 20210167901 A1), hereinafter “Tang”.
Per claim 47 and 52:
Regarding claim 47, Yeo teaches ‘A network node’ (Yeo: [FIG.12]: “Base Station”); ‘in communication with a wireless device(WD)’ (Yeo: [FIG.9]: “Base station” communication with “Terminal”); ‘the network node comprising: A radio interface’ (Yeo: [FIG.12]: “Base station reception unit”, “Base station transmission unit”; [0161]: “a radio channel”);
‘configured to:
transmit to the WD a configuration of a hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) feedback group size’ (Yeo: [FIG.9]: Step 9-05: “Base station” to “Terminal’: “HARQ configuration information”; [0123]: “If HARQ-ACK information is expressed in CBG units, information on the maximum number of CBGs per TB or the number of CBGs per TB, or information on the number of HARQ-ACK bits per TB”; may transmit HARQ-ACK feedback group size to terminal);
‘transmit a downlink control information (DCI) to schedule an uplink transmission over multiple slots from the WD’ (Yeo: [FIG.9]: Step 9-10: “Scheduling information”; [0055]: “the DCI may indicate whether it is scheduling information (UL grant) for uplink data”; may transmit DCI to schedule an uplink transmission). However, Yeo fails to expressly teach an uplink transmission over multiple slots from the WD;
‘processing circuitry’ (Yeo: [FIG.12]: “Base station processing unit”);
‘generate HARQ-ACK feedback of a size determined by the feedback group size for the uplink transmission’ (Yeo: [0067]: “physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission”; [FIG.4], [FIG.5], [FIG.6], [FIG.9]: Step 9-25: “Generate HARQ feedback information”; [0127]: “generate HARQ feedback information based on the HARQ configuration information”; [0123]: “If HARQ-ACK information is expressed in CBG units, information on the maximum number of CBGs per TB or the number of CBGs per TB, or information on the number of HARQ-ACK bits per TB”; [0104]-[0106]: generate HARQ-ACK feedback of the feedback group size determined by HARQ configuration information).
Yeo does not expressly teach, but Wong teaches ‘an uplink transmission over multiple slots from the WD’ (Wong: [0058]: “PUSCH slot aggregation is introduced where a PUSCH Transport Block (TB) is repeated over multiple slots”);
‘receive the uplink transmission over multiple slots from the WD’ (Wong: [0058]: “PUSCH slot aggregation is introduced where a PUSCH Transport Block (TB) is repeated over multiple slots”; [0019]: “FIG. 6 shows a second example of a single TB PUSCH transmission, where Type B mapping is used and the TB extends beyond the slot boundary”; [0059]: “a PUSCH repetition can cross slot boundary as shown in an example in FIG. 4. Here a 4× PUSCH mini-slot repetition starts at time t.sub.1, which is the 8.sup.th symbol of Slot n thereby leaving only 7 symbols for PUSCH repetitions. Hence, the repetitions occupies two slots, where 3 PUSCH repetitions are in Slot n and the last PUSCH repetition is in Slot n+1”);
‘wherein the method further comprising scheduling a single transport block (TB) across multiple physical uplink shared channels (PUSCHs) each of the multiple PUSCHs having code blocks (CBs) grouped into a single code block group (CBG)’ (Wong: [0019]: “FIG. 6 shows a second example of a single TB PUSCH transmission, where Type B mapping is used and the TB extends beyond the slot boundary”, a single TB across multiple slots (PUSCHs); [0058]: “PUSCH slot aggregation is introduced where a PUSCH Transport Block (TB) is repeated over multiple slots”; [0059]: “a PUSCH repetition can cross slot boundary as shown in an example in FIG. 4. Here a 4× PUSCH mini-slot repetition starts at time t.sub.1, which is the 8.sup.th symbol of Slot n thereby leaving only 7 symbols for PUSCH repetitions. Hence, the repetitions occupies two slots, where 3 PUSCH repetitions are in Slot n and the last PUSCH repetition is in Slot n+1”; one TB over multiple slots (PUSCHs); [0081]: “In Rel-15 NR, a TB such as a PUSCH can be divided into multiple Code Blocks (CBs) where each CB contains its own CRC. A Code Block Group (CBG) is formed from at least one CB. This is beneficial because the receiver could indicate precisely which CBG contains errors and thus requires retransmission, thereby avoiding the transmitter (e.g. the UE) having to retransmit the entire TB”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wong’s teaching with that of Yeo in order to improve the reliability of PUSCH reception (Wong: [0050]-[0055]: “High reliability can be achieved by … Repetition: The URLLC transmission can be repeated”).
Moreover, Hosseini teaches schedule a single TB over multiple PUSCHs (Hosseini: [FIG.2]: “DCI”, “PUSCH1” … “PUSCHN”; [0128]: “a single instance of DCI may be configured for scheduling uplink resources for a transport block over multiple PUSCH instances (e.g., multiple PUSCH transmissions corresponding to a single TB)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hosseini’s teaching with that of combination of Yeo and Wong in order to support more reliable communications (Hosseini: [0007]: “By applying the described techniques for uplink repetition, a wireless communications system may support more reliable communications”).
Combination of Yeo, Wong and Hosseini does not expressly teach, but Tang in the same field of endeavor teaches ‘transmit the HARQ-ACK feedback to the WD’ (Tang: [FIG.2]: S220: “The network device sends the first HARQ information to a terminal device”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tang’s teaching with that of combination of Yeo, Wong and Hosseini in order to inform the terminal whether the previously transmitted data was received successfully or not.
Regarding claim 52, claim 52 recites the method implemented by the network node of Claim 47 (see rejection of claim 47 above).
Per claim 48 and 53:
Regarding claim 48, combination of Yeo, Wong, Hosseini and Tang teaches the network node of Claim 47 (discussed above).
Yeo teaches ‘wherein the HARQ- ACK feedback is provided per code block group (CBG) when the WD is configured with CBG retransmission’ (Yeo: [0095]: “The HARQ-ACK information… may be HARQ-ACK information in units of CBG in the case where CBG unit retransmission and feedback are configured”).
Regarding claim 53, claim 53 recites the method implemented by the network node of Claim 48 (see rejection of claim 48 above).
Per claim 49 and 54:
Regarding claim 49, combination of Yeo, Wong, Hosseini and Tang teaches the network node of Claim 47 (discussed above).
Yeo teaches ‘wherein code blocks (CB) of a single transport block (TB) are grouped into code block groups (CBGs)’ (Yeo: [FIG.4]; [0089]: “the TB may be grouped according to the following rules in order to configure M CBGs”; [0093]: “one TB may include maximum 4 CBGs”).
Regarding claim 54, claim 54 recites the method implemented by the network node of Claim 49 (see rejection of claim 49 above).
Per claim 51 and 56:
Regarding claim 51, combination of Yeo, Wong, Hosseini and Tang teaches the network node of Claim 47 (discussed above).
Yeo teaches ‘wherein code blocks (CBs) are grouped into a single code block group (CBG)’ (Yeo: [FIG.4]; [0089]-[0093]: may group CBs into a single CBG if M=1).
Yeo does not expressly teach, but Wong teaches ‘transmitted in one or more PUSCHs’ (Wong: [FIG.7]; [0058]: “PUSCH slot aggregation is introduced where a PUSCH Transport Block (TB) is repeated over multiple slots”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wong’s teaching with that of Yeo in order to improve the reliability of PUSCH reception (Wong: [0050]-[0055]: “High reliability can be achieved by … Repetition: The URLLC transmission can be repeated”).
Regarding claim 56, claim 56 recites the method implemented by the network node of Claim 51 (see rejection of claim 51 above).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUOXING FAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571)272-3927. 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.
/G.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2462
/YEMANE MESFIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights