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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/25/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 13, 20 and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (WO 2019/039860 A1), hereinafter Ahn, in view of Peng et al. (CN 108390741 A), hereinafter Peng.
Re. Claims 1, 13 and 20, Ahn teaches a random access method performed by a terminal, comprising: performing a repetition of target information in a target random access procedure, wherein the target information comprises a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (Pg. 2, Line 30 - A processor configured to receive uplink scheduling information from the base station and repeatedly transmit a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) according to the uplink scheduling information, [in] the physical random access channel (PRACH)),
Yet, Ahn does not expressly teach wherein in a case that a quantity of a repetition of the PUSCH is indicated by physical layer signaling the quantity of the repetition of the PUSCH is indicated by some bit of a second field in the physical layer signaling and the second field is a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) field.
However, Peng explicitly teaches wherein in a case that a quantity of a repetition of the PUSCH is indicated by physical layer signaling (Pg. 8 Line 27 - the transmittal time unit number is n, and the number of time unit retransmission is n + k, n is an integer equal to or greater than zero. & Pg. 9 Line 18 - For uplink data transmission scheduling, based on physical layer control information may also be sent to the transmitting device by the receiving device by the DCI), the quantity of the repetition of the PUSCH is indicated by some bit of a second field in the physical layer signaling, and the second field is a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) field (Pg. 11, Line 9 - the MCS field can be used for indicating the modulation mode, and the specific method of indicating modulation mode same with the first transmission, Pg. 11, Line 27 - the MSB of the MCS field to distinguish normal retransmission and special retransmission after the special retransmission, MCS field further with 4 can be used to indicate which portion of data TB retransmission. Specifically, the 5-bit or 4-bit indicating special retransmission of the retransmission data, it can directly reference the 2 and to indicate mode of 3 bits, will not be repeated here.), and some bit of the second field is 2-bit most significant bit (MSB) of the MCS field (Pg. 11, Line 27 - the MSB of the MCS field to distinguish normal retransmission and special retransmission after the special retransmission, MCS field also has 2 bits can be used for indicating the retransmission part of the TB data. for the retransmission of CB CB-set level, can adopt the way of mapping, the 2-bit MCS field for indicating which CB retransmission).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Peng to the teaching of Ahn. The motivation for such would be as Peng provides a quantity of repetition is provided by a bit value related to a MCS field (Pg. 8 Line 27 & Pg. 11, Line 9, Peng) and the bit value being represented by a MSB (Pg. 11, Line 27, Peng). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claims 30-32, Ahn and Peng teaches Claims 1, 13, and 20.
However, Ahn does not explicitly teach sending first indication information, wherein the first indication information is used to indicate the quantity of the repetition of the PUSCH and the first indication information comprises at least one of the following: system information, or radio resource control (RRC) information.
Yet, Peng expressly teaches sending first indication information(Fig. 2, Pg. 9, Line 8 - through the re-defining control MCS field information in the special retransmission indication, specifically indicating the retransmission of which part of the data, & Pg. 9, Line 12 - the first device sends the first control information to the second device, the first control information includes MCS field), wherein the first indication information is used to indicate the quantity of the repetition of the PUSCH (Pg. 8 Line 27 - the transmittal time unit number is n, and the number of time unit retransmission is n + k, n is an integer equal to or greater than zero. & Pg. 9 Line 18 - For uplink data transmission scheduling, based on physical layer control information may also be sent to the transmitting device by the receiving device by the DCI); and the first indication information comprises at least one of the following: system information, OR radio resource control (RRC) information (Pg. 17, Line 19 - high layer signalling may be radio resource control (radio resource control, RRC) layer signaling or media access control (medium access control, MAC) layer signaling).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Peng to the teaching of Ahn. The motivation for such would be as Peng provides sending information indicating the repetition number of the PUSCH (Pg. 9 Line 8-12, Peng) and the indication information contains RRC information (Pg. 17, Line 19, Peng). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Claims 2, 14, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn in view of Peng and Awadin et al. (2023/0188261), hereinafter Awadin.
Re. Claims 2, 14, and 25 Ahn and Peng teaches Claims 1 and 13.
Yet, the combination of Ahn and Peng does not expressly teach wherein the performing a repetition of target information in a target random access procedure comprises: performing a repetition of a message 3 in a 4-step random access procedure.
However, Awadin expressly teaches wherein the performing a repetition of target information in a target random access procedure comprises at least one of the following: performing a repetition of a message 3 in a 4-step random access procedure (¶0178 - Msg3 can be repeated and each repetition has to be scheduled by a separate downlink control information (DCI) format 1_0 with cyclic redundancy check (CRC)… the embodiments described herein include procedures to enhance the coverage of Msg3 and provide details on how it can be scheduled by Msg2 or MsgB in 4-step and 2-step RACH).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Awadin to the teaching of Ahn and Peng. The motivation for such would be as Awadin provides a means for performing a repetition of a msg3 in a 4-step procedure (¶0178, Awadin). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Claims 4, 16, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn in view of Peng, Park and Liu et al. (CN 108347789 A), hereinafter Liu 1.
Re. Claims 4, 16 and 26, Ahn, Peng, and Awadin teach Claims 3 and 15.
Additionally, Ahn further teaches wherein the PUSCH comprises at least one of an initially-transmitted PUSCH (Pg. 2, Line 24 - The method comprising: receiving uplink scheduling information from a base station; And repeatedly transmitting a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH). Additionally, Examiner interprets that the PUSCH being transmitted in response to the received information from the base station is the initial transmission of the PUSCH, and Examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features needs to be mapped because of the presence of “Or”) OR a retransmitted PUSCH;
However, the combination of Ahn, Peng and Awadin does not expressly teach in a case that the quantity of the repetition of the PUSCH is indicated by the physical layer signaling, the quantity of the repetition of the PUSCH satisfies at least one of the following: that a quantity of a repetition of the initially-transmitted PUSCH is indicated by uplink grant in a random access response (RAR); or by a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) command that triggers the target random access; or that a quantity of a repetition of the retransmitted PUSCH is indicated by a downlink control information (DCI) format 1_0 scrambled by a temporary cell radio network temporary identity (TC-RNTI).
Yet, Liu 1 explicitly teaches the quantity of the repetition of the PUSCH satisfies AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: that a quantity of a repetition of the initially-transmitted PUSCH is indicated by uplink grant in a random access response (RAR) (Pg. 12, Line 15 - The network device can send the UL grant in the RAR message "the physical uplink shared channel transmission power control command" field will be defined, re-defining the physical uplink sharing channel of transmission power control command "field change is repeated time" message 3 field, a message 3 for indicating repetition times. Examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features needs to be mapped because of the presence of “Or” and “one of the following”); OR that a quantity of a repetition of the retransmitted PUSCH is indicated by a downlink control information (DCI) format 1_0 scrambled by a temporary cell radio network temporary identity (TC-RNTI).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Liu 1 to the teaching of Ahn, Peng and Awadin. The motivation for such would be as Liu 1 provides that the repetition quantity of the PUSCH can be provided in a random access response (Pg. 12, Line 15, Liu 1). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn in view of Peng and Andersson et al. (CN 113728174 B), hereinafter Andersson.
Re. Claims 8 and 19, Ahn and Peng teaches Claims 1 and 13.
However, the combination of Ahn and Peng does not expressly teach wherein a repetition rule of the PUSCH comprises any one of the following: that different repetitions are in different slots, and each repetition occupies a same initial time-domain resource in the slot; that all repetitions are continuous in a time-domain resource, and in a case that a first condition is met, a fifth repetition is divided into K sub repetitions; that all the repetitions are continuous in the time-domain resource, there is a guard period in the time domain resource between two adjacent repetitions, and in a case that the first condition is met, the fifth repetition is divided into the K sub repetitions; and that all the repetition are continuous in the time-domain resource, there is a guard period in the time-domain resource between the two adjacent repetitions, and in a case that there is an unavailable time-domain resource in a time-domain resource configured by the fifth repetition, an execution of the fifth repetition is abandoned, or the fifth repetition is postponed for execution, wherein K is an integer greater than 1, wherein the first condition comprises any one of the following: that the time domain resource configured by the fifth repetition crosses a slot boundary; and that there is an unavailable time-domain resource in the time-domain resource configured by the fifth repetition.
Yet, Andersson explicitly teaches wherein a repetition rule of the PUSCH comprises ANY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: that different repetitions are in different slots, and each repetition occupies a same initial time-domain resource in the slot (Pg. 41, Line 12 - For at least a scheduled PUSCH, an option to schedule two or more PUSCH repetitions in continuously available time slots is granted for one UL, wherein one repetition in each time slot may have a different start symbol and/or duration (also referred to as "multi-segment transmission"). If it is supported, the time-domain resource determination is granted, wherein the time-domain resource assignment field in the DCI indicates the start symbols and the transmission duration of all the repeats. Additionally, Examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features needs to be mapped because of the presence of “one of the following”. Examiner notes the use of “and” in the list of selections within this claim, but interprets that only one need be selected from the list); that all repetitions are continuous in a time-domain resource, and in a case that a first condition is met, a fifth repetition is divided into K sub repetitions; that all the repetitions are continuous in the time-domain resource, there is a guard period in the time domain resource between two adjacent repetitions, and in a case that the first condition is met, the fifth repetition is divided into the K sub repetitions; and that all the repetition are continuous in the time-domain resource, there is a guard period in the time-domain resource between the two adjacent repetitions, and in a case that there is an unavailable time-domain resource in a time-domain resource configured by the fifth repetition, an execution of the fifth repetition is abandoned, or the fifth repetition is postponed for execution, wherein K is an integer greater than 1, wherein the first condition comprises any one of the following: that the time domain resource configured by the fifth repetition crosses a slot boundary; and that there is an unavailable time-domain resource in the time-domain resource configured by the fifth repetition.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Andersson to the teaching of Ahn and Peng. The motivation for such would be as Andersson provides that repetitions are in different slots with a shared time-resource (Pg. 41, Line 12, Andersson). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Claims 9-10, 22-23, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn in view of Peng and Bagheri et al (2022/0338235), hereinafter Bagheri.
Re. Claims 9, 22 and 27, Ahn and Peng teaches Claim 1.
However, the combination of Ahn and Peng does not expressly teach wherein a redundant version (RV) of a repetition of the PUSCH is indicated by at least one of system information, RRC information, and physical layer signaling.
Yet, Bagheri explicitly teaches wherein a redundant version (RV) of a repetition of the PUSCH is indicated by AT LEAST ONE OF system information, RRC information, and physical layer signaling (¶0026 - A radio resource control (RRC) signaling per configured grant (CG) configuration to enable/disable the feature of starting from any RV0 occasion for RV cyclic sequences {0,0,0,0}. Additionally, Examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features needs to be mapped because of the presence of “one of the following”. Examiner notes the use of “and” in the list of selections within this claim, but interprets that only one need be selected from the list).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Bagheri to the teaching of Ahn and Peng. The motivation for such would be as Bagheri provides a redundancy version via RRC signaling (¶0026, Bagheri). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claims 10 , 23 and 28, Ahn and Peng teaches Claim 1.
However, the combination of Ahn and Peng does not explicitly teach wherein a redundant version of a repetition of the PUSCH comprises at least one of the following: a RV sequence 1: {0, 2, 3, 1}.
Yet, Bagheri explicitly teaches wherein a redundant version of a repetition of the PUSCH comprises at least one of the following: a RV sequence 1: {0, 2, 3, 1} (¶0090 - The initial transmission of a transport block may start at the first transmission occasion of the K repetitions if the configured RV sequence is {0,2,3,1}).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Bagheri to the teaching of Ahn and Peng. The motivation for such would be as Bagheri provides a redundancy version with the specified pattern (¶0090, Bagheri). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on Page 3 that the combination of Ahn and Peng fail to disclose the final limitation of Claim 1. The argument runs that the MSB of the MCS field disclosed is not used to indicate the quantity of retransmission, as well as the 2 bits in the MCS do not belong to the MSB. It appears that the Applicant believes that the claim language is broader than it actually claims and is arguing regarding information beyond a broadest reasonable interpretation. In response to the first argument found on Page 3, Examiner has provided a new citation of Peng which shows that the retransmission information can be used for both a regular retransmission and a special retransmission (Pg. 11, Line 27 - the MSB of the MCS field to distinguish normal retransmission and special retransmission after the special retransmission, MCS field further with 4 can be used to indicate which portion of data TB retransmission. Specifically, the 5-bit or 4-bit indicating special retransmission of the retransmission data, it can directly reference the 2 and to indicate mode of 3 bits, will not be repeated here), which Examiner interprets as being sufficient to establish a “quantity” of retransmissions. Regarding the argument regarding the use of two bits, also on Page 3, Applicant argues that the bit includes the quantity of repetition and a 2-bit MSB. Examiner disagrees with this interpretation. The Claim language merely states that “some bit of the second field” indicates a quantity of the repetition of the PUSCH and also “some bit of the second field” is a 2-bit MSB of the MCS field. The claim language does not indicate if these bits are the same bit, which Applicant indicates as such in their argument. Examiner has provided that there is a bit that indicates a repetition in the MCS and a 2-bit MSB in the MCS field, both of which when put together embody the same invention as currently claimed in the present application. As such, Examiner respectfully disagrees with the interpretation provided by the Applicant and requests clarification in the claim language if “some bit” as defined in Claim 1 is the same bit between the two outlined above or if they are different. At this time, Examiner upholds the rejection of Claims 1, 13, and 20 as well as all claims depending therein under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ly et al. (WO 2021226360 A1) - ¶0005-0014, ¶0047-0059
Hu et al. (2024/0430903) - ¶0023, ¶0168
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 NOAH JAMES SUGDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7406. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00-6:00 ET, Fri 9:00-1:00 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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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.
/N.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/HASHIM S BHATTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights