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 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) 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 17, 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda US 20210378006 in view of Islam US 20210176762 and Cirik US 20210136802.
Regarding claims 6, 13, 17, 21, Takeda teaches user equipment (UE), comprising:
at least one memory; and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to:
receive downlink control information comprising a format that indicates a set of parameters for at least one transmissions across a plurality of slots;
wherein a time-domain resource assignment for the at least one transmission is indicated by a time-domain resource assignment field in the received downlink control information, and
wherein the time-domain resource assignment field indicates an index corresponding to a time-domain resource assignment table configured by higher layer signaling ([0105, 0106]).
Takeda is silent on wherein an indication of a quantity of slots for a multiple-slot single transport block (TB) transmission enables transmission of a first TB across multiple slots,
wherein a field in the format indicates scheduling information that schedules the transmission of the first TB across a plurality of contiguous slots, a plurality of non-contiguous slots, or a combination thereof.
Islam teaches wherein an indication of a quantity of slots for a multiple-slot single transport block (TB) transmission enables transmission of a first TB across multiple slots,
wherein a field in the format indicates scheduling information that schedules the transmission of the first TB across a plurality of contiguous slots, a plurality of non-contiguous slots (the indication can be conveyed if a DCI schedules a PDSCH/PUSCH/TB repetition over N>1 consecutive slots, where consecutive DL or UL slots can be contiguous or non-contiguous, [0051]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Tadaka by on wherein an indication of a quantity of slots for a multiple-slot single transport block (TB) transmission enables transmission of a first TB across multiple slots, wherein a field in the format indicates scheduling information that schedules the transmission of the first TB across a plurality of contiguous slots, a plurality of non-contiguous slots, or a combination thereof, as suggested by Islam. This modification would benefit the system by providing a proven, reliable method for the network to inform the UE of the slots to be used for uplink/downlink.
The combination is silent on wherein the format schedules a repetition of at least one new TB for a first transmission, or a second transmission, or both.
Cirik teaches wherein the format schedules a repetition of at least one new TB for a first transmission, or a second transmission, or both (The DCI may further schedule repetition
of the transport block in a plurality of transmission occasions, [0369]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of the combination by wherein the format schedules a repetition of at least one new TB for a first transmission, or a second transmission, or both, as shown by Cirik. This modification would benefit the system by providing a proven, reliable method for enabling retransmission.
Regarding claim 7, 14, 22, the control information format schedules a first at least one transport block for downlink transmission across a first at least one transmission time interval (Islam: the indication can be conveyed if a DCI
schedules a PDSCH/PUSCH/TB repetition over N>1 consecutive slots, where consecutive DL or UL slots can be contiguous or non-contiguous, [0051]).
Regarding claims 9, 23, the format schedules at least one new transport block (TB), a retransmission of at least one old TB(Takeda: retransmission, [0033]), or a repetition of the at least one new transport block for a first transmission (Takeda: repetition, [0060]), or a second transmission, or both.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended independent claim(s) 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD B ABELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/RONALD B ABELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights