DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 02/23/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1, 11, and 20 have been amended; NO Claim(s) have been canceled; No Claim(s) have been added. Claim(s) 1-20 are subject to examination.
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) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-9, 11-14, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SU et al. (US 20240381364 A1) (See 892 03/07/2025), hereby referred to as SU, in view of LIN et al. (US 20240147397 A1), hereby referred to as LIN.
Claim 1:
SU teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a wireless device, downlink control information indicating scheduling information for transmission of one transport block via a physical uplink shared channel of a cell and using radio resources of the cell in multiple slots (SU: para 6 (“…Transport Block processing over Multi-slot PUSCH…”), para 59 (“…the wireless device 200 receives an explicit indication of whether an uplink grant is for TBoMS, e.g., via…DCI signaling…a DCI field that includes an explicit indication of whether the uplink grant is for…TBoMS scheduling.”), and para 71 (“…DCI Format 0_1 is supported to schedule TBoMS…a table may be used to determine which of a plurality of TDA lists to use…for PUSCH scheduling…”) wherein DCI indicates scheduling information for TBoMS); starting a time alignment timer associated with a timing advance group comprising the cell (SU: para 38 (“…in order to support a PUSCH with configured grants, the wireless device 200 may be expected to behave in a predictable manner…for each service cell belonging to a Timing Advance Group (TAG) that has a running timealignmentTimer…”) wherein there is a time alignment timer that is started); and transmitting the transport block over the multiple slots via the physical uplink shared channel of the cell and based on the scheduling information (SU: FIG. 2 item 320 (“Transmitting on the Uplink in Accordance with the Determination”) wherein TBoMS is transmitted based on the scheduling information).
However, SU does not explicitly disclose determining that the time alignment timer expires in a first slot of the multiple slots, wherein: the first slot of the multiple slots is on or before a latest slot of the multiple slots; and the latest slot of the multiple slots is later than any other slot of the multiple slots; and based on the determining that the time alignment timer expires in the first slot, transmitting the transport block over the multiple slots.
LIN, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining that the time alignment timer expires in a first slot of the multiple slots (LIN: FIG. 6 item S610 (“It is determined, during the SDT, that time alignment (TA)…becomes invalid.”) and para 172 (“…TA is determined as invalid…due to TAT expires…”)), wherein: the first slot of the multiple slots is on or before a latest slot of the multiple slots; and the latest slot of the multiple slots is later than any other slot of the multiple slots (LIN: para 183 (“…when a multiple slot transport block (TB) is transmitted over multiple slots, but the TA is determined as invalid in one of the multiple slots, the transmission in the remaining slots may be determined with one or more of the methods…”) wherein the first slot is the slot in which the TA timer expires/is invalid before the last slot of the TB/SDT transmission); and based on the determining that the time alignment timer expires in the first slot, transmitting the transport block over the multiple slots (LIN: para 200 (“…determining whether a part of the SDT which is not transmitted yet is to be transmitted or not based on one or more criteria comprising…whether a TA timer in the TA configuration is expired or not; whether a measured SS-RSRP change…whether a time gap….may comprise: transmitting the part of the SDT in response to determining that…”) wherein based on the timer expiring, the SDT/TB is determined to still be transmitted over multiple slots based on the configuration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified SU with LIN, the combination hereby referred to as SU-LIN, for the benefit of reducing waste by selectively transmitting the remaining data in the event a time alignment timer expires during transmission for a transport block over multiple slots (LIN: para 136-140).
Claim 2:
SU-LIN teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a number of the multiple slots is based on a row of a resource allocation table (SU: para 57 (“…the TDRA list for TBoMS includes a field that indicates the number of allocated slots for TBoMS.”) wherein an entry of the TDRA list/resource allocation table is a row which indicates a number of slots).
Claim 3:
SU-LIN teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising receiving configuration parameters indicating the resource allocation table (SU: FIG. 12-13 parameters indicating a resource allocation table and para 51 (“…indicating, to a wireless device 200 whether a TDRA list is for transmitting on an uplink using…TBoMS…”) wherein parameters indicate which resource allocation table/list to use).
Claim 4:
SU-LIN teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising determining a transport block size based on the number (SU: para 35 (“…calculate Transport Block Size (TBS)…based on the number of Resource Elements (Res) determined in the first L symbols over which the TBoMS transmission is allocated…”) wherein TBS is based on the number of symbols of the allocated number of slots).
Claim 7:
SU-DLIN teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first slot is an earliest slot in the multiple slots, wherein earliest slot is earlier than any other slot of the multiple slots (LIN: para 172 (“…TA is determined as invalid…due to TAT expires…”) and para 183 (“…when a multiple slot transport block (TB) is transmitted over multiple slots, but the TA is determined as invalid in one of the multiple slots, the transmission in the remaining slots may be determined with one or more of the methods…”) wherein the first slot is the slot in which the TA timer expires/is invalid before the last slot of the TB/SDT transmission).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the time alignment timer of SU with sending uplink packets when the time alignment timer expires of LIN for the benefit of reducing waste by selectively transmitting the remaining data in the event a time alignment timer expires during transmission for a transport block over multiple slots (LIN: para 136-140).
Claim 8:
SU-LIN teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the time alignment timer is not running in a second slot of the multiple slots (LIN: para 172 (“…TA is determined as invalid…due to TAT expires…”) and para 183 (“…when a multiple slot transport block (TB) is transmitted over multiple slots, but the TA is determined as invalid in one of the multiple slots, the transmission in the remaining slots may be determined with one or more of the methods…”) wherein the first slot is the slot in which the TA timer expires/is invalid before the last slot of the TB/SDT transmission).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the time alignment timer of SU with sending uplink packets when the time alignment timer expires of LIN for the benefit of reducing waste by selectively transmitting the remaining data in the event a time alignment timer expires during transmission for a transport block over multiple slots (LIN: para 136-140).
Claim 9:
SU-LIN teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving configured grant configuration parameters of a configured grant configuration (SU: para 37 (“…the scheduling of the PUSCH may be performed using a configured grant…”) and para 56 (“…the network node 100 may, in such embodiments, grant uplink resources for…TBoMS…”) wherein grant parameters are the granted uplink resources), wherein the transmission of the transport block is based on the configured grant configuration parameters (SU: para 37 (“…the scheduling of the PUSCH may be performed using a configured grant…”) wherein TBoMS on PUSCH is based on configured grant).
Claim 11:
SU teaches a wireless device comprising: one or more processors (SU: FIG. 1 item 210 (“Processing Circuitry”)); and memory storing instructions executed by the one or more processors (SU: FIG. 1 item 220 (“Memory Circuitry”) and para 27 (“For example, the processing circuitry 110, 210 may be programmable hardware capable of executing software instructions stored, e.g., as a machine-readable computer program in the memory circuitry 120, 220.”)).
For further limitations, see rejection for claim 1 above.
Claim 12:
SU-LIN teaches the wireless device of claim 11. For further limitations, see rejection for claim 2 above.
Claim 13:
SU-LIN teaches the wireless device of claim 12. For further limitations, see rejection for claim 3 above.
Claim 14:
SU-LIN teaches the wireless device of claim 12. For further limitations, see rejection for claim 4 above.
Claim 17:
SU-LIN teaches the wireless device of claim 11. For further limitations, see rejection for claim 7 above.
Claim 18:
SU-LIN teaches the wireless device of claim 11. For further limitations, see rejection for claim 8 above.
Claim 19:
SU-LIN teaches the wireless device of claim 11. For further limitations, see rejection for claim 9 above.
Claim 20:
SU teaches a system comprising a base station (SU: FIG. 1 item 100 (“Network Node”) the base station); and a wireless device (SU: FIG. 1 item 200 (“Wireless Device”)) comprising: one or more processors (SU: FIG. 1 item 210 (“Processing Circuitry”)); and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (SU: FIG. 1 item 220 (“Memory Circuitry”) and para 27 (“For example, the processing circuitry 110, 210 may be programmable hardware capable of executing software instructions stored, e.g., as a machine-readable computer program in the memory circuitry 120, 220.”)), cause the wireless device to: receive, from the base station, downlink control information indicating: scheduling information for transmission of one transport block via a physical uplink shared channel of a cell and using radio resources of the cell in multiple slots (SU: para 6 (“…Transport Block processing over Multi-slot PUSCH…”), para 59 (“…the wireless device 200 receives an explicit indication of whether an uplink grant is for TBoMS, e.g., via…DCI signaling…a DCI field that includes an explicit indication of whether the uplink grant is for…TBoMS scheduling.”), and para 71 (“…DCI Format 0_1 is supported to schedule TBoMS…a table may be used to determine which of a plurality of TDA lists to use…for PUSCH scheduling…”) wherein DCI indicates scheduling information for TBoMS); start a time alignment timer associated with a timing advance group comprising the cell (SU: para 38 (“…in order to support a PUSCH with configured grants, the wireless device 200 may be expected to behave in a predictable manner…for each service cell belonging to a Timing Advance Group (TAG) that has a running timealignmentTimer…”) wherein there is a time alignment timer that is started); and transmit the transport block over the multiple slots via the physical uplink shared channel of the cell and based on the scheduling information (SU: FIG. 2 item 320 (“Transmitting on the Uplink in Accordance with the Determination”) wherein TBoMS is transmitted based on the scheduling information).
However, SU does not explicitly disclose determining that the time alignment timer expires in a first slot of the multiple slots, wherein: the first slot of the multiple slots is on or before a latest slot of the multiple slots; and the latest slot of the multiple slots is later than any other slot of the multiple slots; and based on the determining that the time alignment timer expires in the first slot, transmitting the transport block over the multiple slots.
LIN, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determine that the time alignment timer expires in a first slot of the multiple slots (LIN: FIG. 6 item S610 (“It is determined, during the SDT, that time alignment (TA)…becomes invalid.”) and para 172 (“…TA is determined as invalid…due to TAT expires…”)), wherein: the first slot of the multiple slots is on or before a latest slot of the multiple slots; and the latest slot of the multiple slots is later than any other slot of the multiple slots (LIN: para 183 (“…when a multiple slot transport block (TB) is transmitted over multiple slots, but the TA is determined as invalid in one of the multiple slots, the transmission in the remaining slots may be determined with one or more of the methods…”) wherein the first slot is the slot in which the TA timer expires/is invalid before the last slot of the TB/SDT transmission); and based on the determining that the time alignment timer expires in the first slot, transmit the transport block over the multiple slots (LIN: para 200 (“…determining whether a part of the SDT which is not transmitted yet is to be transmitted or not based on one or more criteria comprising…whether a TA timer in the TA configuration is expired or not; whether a measured SS-RSRP change…whether a time gap….may comprise: transmitting the part of the SDT in response to determining that…”) wherein based on the timer expiring, the SDT/TB is determined to still be transmitted over multiple slots based on the configuration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified SU with LIN, the combination hereby referred to as SU-LIN, for the benefit of reducing waste by selectively transmitting the remaining data in the event a time alignment timer expires during transmission for a transport block over multiple slots (LIN: para 136-140).
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SU in view of LIN, the combination hereby referred to as SU-LIN, and in further view of MATSUMURA et al. (US 20250039874 A1) (see 892 03/07/2025), hereby referred to as MATSUMURA.
Claim 5:
SU-LIN teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the downlink control information comprises an indication of the resource allocation table (SU: FIG. 13-14 wherein DCI indicates a resource allocation table).
However, SU-LIN does not explicitly disclose a field with a value indicating the row of the resource allocation table.
MATSUMURA, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the downlink control information comprises a field with a value indicating the row of the resource allocation table (para 42 (“The UE may determine a row index (entry number or entry index) in a certain table, based on a value of a TDRA field in DCI.”) wherein the field is the TDRA field).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified SU-LIN with MATSUMURA for the benefit of scheduling uplink transmissions on a shared channel (MATSUMURA: para 44-45).
Claim 15:
SU-LIN teaches the wireless device of claim 12. For further limitations, see rejection for claim 5 above.
Claim(s) 6, 10, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SU in view of LIN, the combination hereby referred to as SU-LIN, and in further view of TSAI et al. (US 20230122869 A1) (see 892 03/07/2025), hereby referred to as TSAI.
Claim 6:
SU-LIN teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving a first configuration parameter indicating a first time (LIN: para 58 (“The TA timer may be configured in TAG-Config IE…timealignmentTimer Value in ms…”) wherein the MAC CE with TAG-CONFIG IE is the first configuration parameter indicating at which length the timer will expire), but does not explicitly indicate the first slot of the multiple slots.
TSAI, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the first slot of the multiple slots (TSAI: para 96 (“The value of the timer may be configured…The timer may be a TA timer…”) and para 204-205 (“UE may be configured with…TA timer…The unit of the TA timer may be…slot…”) wherein the configuration parameter/value of the timer is expressed in slots and wherein the value of the timer (in slots) indicates when the timer will expire which can be considered the first slot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified SU-LIN with TSAI for the benefit of determining a valid period for a configured grant resource/configuration to prevent failure (TSAI: para 61).
Claim 10:
SU-LIN teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising receiving a first configuration parameter indicating a first time (LIN: para 58 (“The TA timer may be configured in TAG-Config IE…timealignmentTimer Value in ms…”) wherein the MAC CE with TAG-CONFIG IE is the first configuration parameter indicating at which length the timer will expire), but does not explicitly indicate the first slot of the multiple slots.
TSAI, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the first slot of the multiple slots (TSAI: para 96 (“The value of the timer may be configured…The timer may be a TA timer…”) and para 204-205 (“UE may be configured with…TA timer…The unit of the TA timer may be…slot…”) wherein the configuration parameter/value of the timer is expressed in slots and wherein the value of the timer (in slots) indicates when the timer will expire which can be considered the first slot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified SU-LIN with TSAI for the benefit of determining a valid period for a configured grant resource/configuration to prevent failure (TSAI: para 61).
Claim 16:
SU-LIN teaches the wireless device of claim 11. For further limitations, see rejection for claim 6 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
LEE et al. (US 20220225419 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELIE T NGO whose telephone number is (571)272-0180. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur: 8am - 5pm; 2nd Fri: 8am - 3pm.
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, Noel Beharry can be reached at (571) 270-5630. 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.
/A.T.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2416
/NOEL R BEHARRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2416
Prosecution Insights