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 .
Claim Status
This office action is in response to the communication(s) filed on 03/24/2026.
Claim(s) 1-12, 20-28, and 37-51 is/are currently presenting for examination.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 20, and 43 is/are independent claim(s).
Claim(s) 1-12, 20-28, and 37-51 is/are rejected.
This action has been made NON-FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/24/2026 have been considered.
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC § 103 rejection of claims 1-12, 20-28, and 37-51 have been considered have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claims 1, 10, 20, and 43, the applicant argues that the first SPS and second SPS of Babaei are used for uplink transmissions from a UE, therefore Babaei fails to disclose that the first SPS and the second SPS correspond to downlink transmissions.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Babaei paragraph 175 describes, “In an example, multiple downlink, uplink, and/or sidelink SPSs may be configured for a cell…”, and paragraph 176 describes, “…A similar mechanism may be applied to the downlink”. Therefore, the processes in figure 18 and 21 also work for the downlink transmission, and the first SPS and the second SPS can be for downlink transmissions too.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 1-7, 9-12, 20-26, 28, 37-40, 42-49, and 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20180160445_A1_Babaei in view of US_20220217715_A1_Bae.
Regarding claim 1, Babaei discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising: receiving initial semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) via a first radio resource control (RRC) message (Babaei figure 21, steps 2110 and 2120, and paragraph 228, “At 2110, a wireless device may receive one or more messages. The message may comprise: first configuration parameters of a first semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) and second configuration parameters of a second SPS”, and paragraph 147, “A base station may transmit one or more RRC messages to a wireless device to configure SPS. The one or more RRC messages may comprise SPS configuration parameters…”, paragraph 143, “The activation/deactivation of an SPS configuration may signaled via a PDCCH DCI and/or an RRC message by eNB”. The 1st SPS is corresponding to the claimed “initial SPS”); receiving, via a second RRC message, supplemental SPS (Babaei figure 21, steps 2110 and 2130, and paragraph 228,147, 143, The 2nd SPS is corresponding to the claimed “supplemental SPS”. As describes in figure 21 step 2110 and paragraph 144, the wireless device can receives RRC messages (which can include a 1st RRC message and a 2nd RRC message) comprising 1st configuration parameters of a 1st SPS and 2nd configuration parameters of a 2nd SPS, therefore, a 1st RRC message for the 1st SPS, and a 2nd RRC message for the 2nd SPS), one or more first parameters of the initial SPS being different than one or more second parameters of the supplemental SPS (Babaei figure 21, and paragraph 143, “k SPS (e.g. k=8 or 16, etc.) configurations with different parameters may be configured by eNB and SPS configurations may be active at the same time”, paragraph 159, “some of the SPS configuration parameters may be the same across multiple SPS and some other SPS configuration parameters may be different across SPS configurations”); and receiving downlink re-transmissions according to the supplemental SPS (Babaei figure 21, steps 2140-2170),
But does not disclose the supplemental SPS corresponding to one or more downlink transmission from a network node, the initial SPS corresponding to an initial downlink transmission, and receiving downlink re-transmissions of the initial transmission in accordance with according to the supplemental SPS based on a failure to decode the initial downlink transmission.
Bae discloses the supplemental SPS corresponding to one or more downlink transmission from a network node (Bae, paragraph 197, “The UE receives the first TB on one or more second SPS resources using a HARQ process associated with the first SPS resource based on a processing time of the UE (S820)”. the first SPS is corresponding to the claimed “supplemental SPS”) , the initial SPS corresponding to an initial downlink transmission (Bae, paragraph 195-197, the first TB is corresponding to the claimed “initial transmission”), and receiving downlink re-transmissions of the initial transmission in accordance with the supplemental SPS based on a failure to decode the initial downlink transmission (Bae, paragraph 197, “The UE receives the first TB on one or more second SPS resources using a HARQ process associated with the first SPS resource based on a processing time of the UE (S820). When decoding of the first TB received on the first SPS resource fails, retransmission of the first TB may be performed.”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Bae’s If decoding of the first TB received on the first SPS resource fails, the UE may transmit NACK information to the BS and perform retransmission of the first TB on one or more second SPS resources in Babaei’s system to improve the retransmission success rate. This method for improving the system of Babaei was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Bae. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Babaei and Bae to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Babaei and Bae disclose the method of claim 1, and Babaei further discloses further comprising switching to the supplemental SPS in response to a trigger (Babaei figure 21, steps 2120 and 2130).
Regarding claim 3, Babaei and Bae disclose the method of claim 2, and Bae further discloses further comprising transmitting a negative acknowledgement (NACK) in response to the initial downlink transmission transmission from a base station, in which the trigger comprises transmitting the NACK (Bae paragraph 196, “If decoding of the first TB received on the first SPS resource fails, the UE may transmit NACK information to the BS and perform retransmission of the first TB…” Paragraph 176, “… A similar mechanism may be applied to the downlink”).
Regarding claim 4, Babaei and Bae disclose the method of claim 1, and Babaei further discloses in which each of the one or more first parameters and the one or more second parameters include one or more of a resource block allocation, a start and length indicator value (SLIV), or a re- transmission switch period (Babaei paragraph 171, “Different SPS processes may differ in the number of allocated resource blocks (RBs) and/or SPS periodicity and may correspond to different types ofV2X packets”, paragraph 182, “The SPS configuration parameter associated with the SPS configuration index may include, for example, SPS periodicity, MCS, radio resource parameters, and/or other SPS parameters included in SPS configurations”, and paragraph 146).
Regarding claim 5, Babaei and Bae disclose the method of claim 4, and Babaei further discloses in which the resource block allocation and the SLIV of the supplemental SPS are different from a resource block allocation and a SLIV of the initial SPS period (Babaei paragraph 171, “Different SPS processes may differ in the number of allocated resource blocks (RBs) and/or SPS periodicity and may correspond to different types ofV2X packets”).
Regarding claim 6, Babaei and Bae disclose the method of claim 4, and Babaei further discloses in which a number of resource blocks of the supplemental SPS is greater than a number of resource blocks of the initial SPS (Babaei paragraph 171, “Different SPS processes may differ in the number of allocated resource blocks (RBs) and/or SPS periodicity and may correspond to different types ofV2X packets”. That means, the number of resource blocks of the 2nd SPS can be greater than the 1st SPS).
Regarding claim 7, Babaei and Bae disclose the method of claim 4, and Babaei further discloses in which a number of symbols of the supplemental SPS is greater than a number of symbols of the initial SPS (Babaei paragraph 171, “Different SPS processes may differ in the number of allocated resource blocks (RBs) and/or SPS periodicity and may correspond to different types ofV2X packets”, and paragraph 99, “The transmitted signal in slot 206 may be described by one or several resource grids of a plurality of subcarriers and a plurality of OFDM symbols. Resource blocks may be used to describe the mapping of certain physical channels to resource elements”. That means, the number of symbols of the 2nd SPS can be greater than the 1st SPS).
Regarding claim 9, Babaei and Bae disclose the method of claim 1, and Babaei further discloses further comprising: receiving downlink control information; and activating the supplemental SPS via the downlink control information (Babaei figure 21, step 2130).
Regarding claim 10, Babaei and Bae disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 1, and Babaei further discloses and an apparatus for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE), comprising: at least one processor; at least one memory coupled with the at least one processor; and instructions stored in the memory and operable, when executed by the processor (Babaei figure 4).
Regarding claim 11, Babaei and Bae disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, Babaei and Bae disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 20, Babaei and Bae disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, Babaei and Bae disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 22, Babaei and Bae disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 23, Babaei and Bae disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 24 Babaei and Bae disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 25, Babaei and Bae disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 26, Babaei and Bae disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 28, Babaei and Bae disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 9.
Regarding claim 37, Babaei and Bae disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 38 Babaei and Bae disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 39, Babaei and Bae disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 40, Babaei and Bae disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 42, Babaei and Bae disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 9.
Regarding claim 43, Babaei and Bae disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 1, and Babaei further discloses and an apparatus for wireless communication at a base station, comprising: at least one processor; at least one memory coupled with the at least one processor; and instructions stored in the memory and operable, when executed by the processor (Babaei figure 4).
Regarding claim 44, Babaei and Bae disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 45, Babaei and Bae disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 46, Babaei and Bae disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 47 Babaei and Bae disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 48, Babaei and Bae disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 49, Babaei and Bae disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 51, Babaei and Bae disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 9.
Claim(s) 8, 27, 41, 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20180160445_A1_Babaei in view of US_20220217715_A1_Bae and US_20230180269_A1_Li.
Regarding claim 8, Babaei and Bae disclose the method of claim 1, but do not disclose in which the supplemental SPS configures one or more of a number of downlink re-transmissions and an offset for switching a number of resource blocks or a start and length indicator value (SLIV) during the number of downlink re-transmissions.
Li discloses which the supplemental SPS configures one or more of a number of re-transmissions and an offset for switching a number of resource blocks or a start and length indicator value (SLIV) during the number of re-transmissions (Li paragraph 140, “Instead of signaling the relative value, e.g., offset, the gNB may directly signal the start symbol and the duration of the retransmission PDSCH, e.g., through the start and length indicator value (SLIV) field in the activation DCI. The value indicated in the SLIV field for the initial PDSCH transmission may be also applied for the retransmission PDSCH. Or a new SLIV field may be introduced for retransmission PDSCH which is different from the SLIV field used for the initial PDSCH. Combined with the indicated slot offset, the UE 241 may determine the time location of the retransmission”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Li’s indicating relative values in the SLIV field in the activation DCI in Babaei and Bae’s system to let the UE determine the time location of the retransmission (Li paragraph 140). This method for improving the system of Babaei and Bae was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Li. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Babaei, Bae and Li to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Regarding claim 27, Babaei, Bae and Li disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 8.
Regarding claim 41, Babaei, Bae and Li disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 8.
Regarding claim 50, Babaei, Bae and Li disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 8.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prior art US_20200366423_A1_Lee discloses a UE configured with multiple SPS (semi-persistent scheduling) configurations on same or multiple BWP when a UE fails to (re)transmit a MAC PDU using a HARQ process on a first SPS configuration, the UE selects a second SPS configuration where the same HARQ process is available and the UE performs a retransmission of the MAC PDU using the same HARQ process on the second SPS configuration (Lee paragraphs 119 148).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEIBIN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3695. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM - 6:00PM.
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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571)272-8586. 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.
/W.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights