CTNF 18/168,411 CTNF 84737 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED OFFICE ACTION This action is responsive to the communication received February 23 rd , 2026. Claims 5-6, 19, 22 have been canceled. Claims 1-4, 7-18, 20-21, 23-30 have been entered and are presented for examination. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, filed February 4 th , 2026, have been fully considered, but deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15-18, 20-21, and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fakoorian et al (US 20210068105 A1) hereinafter Fakoorian in view of Joseph et al. (US 2020/0245335 A1) hereinafter Joseph . Regarding claim 1, Fakoorian teaches a method for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (a method at a UE [0004] and [0018]) , comprising: receiving control signaling associated with one or more uplink configured grants usable by the UE (semi-persistently scheduling, SPS. resources for multiple configured grants [0018]-[0019], [0051]-[0053], and [0091]-[0097]) , the one or more uplink configured grants including a first plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions within a first configured grant period and a second plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions within a second configured grant period (ULCG with multiple transmission occasions based on the periodicity in a time period supporting multiple grants [0093]-[0098]; element 205 of Fig. 2) ; and transmitting, based at least in part on a first span of the first set of uplink shared channel transmission occasions and a second span of the second set of uplink shared channel transmission occasions overlapping in time (the UE may transmit based on applying a conflict resolution rule when there is a time overlap between at least two transmission occasions [0053]; Fig. 3-8) , a first data packet via a first subset of the first set of uplink shared channel transmission occasions and a second data packet via at least a second subset of the second set of uplink shared channel transmission occasions (the UE may prioritize by skipping transmissions within a first configured grant for the transmissions of a second configured grant, thereby using a subset of the uplink transmission occasions for different packets [0053]; Figs. 3-8) . Fakoorian does not explicitly teach transmitting in accordance with a time domain overlapping rule; application of the time domain overlapping rule is based at least in part on the first plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions and the second plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions corresponding to a same transmission and reception point (TRP); the first span is a time duration between a starting point of an initial uplink shared channel transmission occasion of the first plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions and an ending point of a final uplink shared channel transmission occasion of the first plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions, and the second span is a time duration between a starting point of an initial uplink shared channel transmission occasion of the second plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions and an ending point of a final uplink shared channel transmission occasion of the second plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions. Joseph teaches transmitting in accordance with a time domain overlapping rule (paragraph 0105 [priority rules may be defined for resolving conflicts between scheduled uplink transmissions]) ; application of the time domain overlapping rule is based at least in part on the first plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions and the second plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions corresponding to a same transmission and reception point (TRP) (paragraphs 0101, 0105 [multiple semi-persistent resource allocations (e.g., SPS and/or CG) per serving cell; multiple CGs associated with the same serving cell can overlap or conflict in time. As such, priority rules may be defined for resolving conflicts between scheduled uplink transmissions. For example, if two CGs have an overlapping transmissions occasion, the CG with the highest priority may be selected]) ; the first span is a time duration between a starting point of an initial uplink shared channel transmission occasion of the first plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions and an ending point of a final uplink shared channel transmission occasion of the first plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions (see Figure 14 [CG-A’s]) , and the second span is a time duration between a starting point of an initial uplink shared channel transmission occasion of the second plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions and an ending point of a final uplink shared channel transmission occasion of the second plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions (see Figure CG-B’s/CG-C’s) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Joseph to the teachings of Fakoorian by utilizing a conflict resolution rule when a collision occurs. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow the data or channel with the highest priority to be sent. Regarding claim 2, Fakoorian and Lin teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above. Fakoorian further teaches receiving, via the control signaling, an indication of a first time domain resource allocation associated with the first plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions and a second time domain resource allocation associated with the second plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions (receiving DCI indicating time domain resources for the configured grants [0018]-[0019], [0051]-[0053], and [0091]-[0097]) , and skipping an uplink shared channel transmission occasion of the first plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions in accordance with the uplink shared channel transmission occasion overlapping in time with the second span of the second plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions (overlapping lapping rule causes UE to skip transmitting of an overlapping occasion between at least two ULCGs [0091]-[0097] and [0100]-[0127]; Fig. 3-8) . Fakoorian does not explicitly teach wherein the first span is associated with the first time domain resource allocation and the second span is associated with the second time domain resource allocation. Joseph teaches wherein the first span is associated with the first time domain resource allocation and the second span is associated with the second time domain resource allocation (see Figure 14) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Joseph to the teachings of Fakoorian by utilizing a conflict resolution rule when a collision occurs. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow the data or channel with the highest priority to be sent. Regarding claim 3, Fakoorian and Joseph teach all the features of claim 2, as outlined above. Fakoorian further teaches skipping the uplink shared channel transmission occasion of the first plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions further comprises: skipping the uplink shared channel transmission occasion of the first plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions in accordance with the first span of the first plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions being associated with an earlier start time than the second span of the second plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions (skipping an occasion for SPS configuration 1 in favor of an occasion in SPS configuration 0 [0091]-[0097] and [0105]-[0108]; Fig. 4) . Regarding claim 4, Fakoorian and Joseph teach all the features of claim 2, as outlined above. Fakoorian further teaches skipping the uplink shared channel transmission occasion of the first plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions further comprises: skipping the uplink shared channel transmission occasion of the first plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions in accordance with the first span of the first plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions being associated with a later start time than the second span of the second plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions (skipping an occasion for SPS configuration 1 in favor of an occasion in SPS configuration 2 [0091]-[0097] and [0105]-[0108]; Fig. 4) . Regarding claim 7, Fakoorian and Joseph teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above. Fakoorian further teaches the first plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions is periodically available to the UE in accordance with the first configured grant period and the second plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions is periodically available to the UE in accordance with the second configured grant period (each ULCG containing slots within the grant duration having a respective periodicity [0051] and [0091]-[0097]; Figs. 2-7) . Regarding claim 8, Fakoorian and Joseph teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above. Joseph teaches the first span and the second span are associated with a same configured grant (paragraphs 0105-0106 [if three logical channels are eligible to use a given CG and the priorities of the three logical channels are 2, 4, and 6 respectively, then the priority of the given CG may be determined to be 6; If two CGs in conflict are determined to have the same priority, the UE may use their identifiers to break the tie, such as by selecting the CG with a higher index as its identifier]) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Joseph to the teachings of Fakoorian by utilizing a conflict resolution rule when a collision occurs. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow the data or channel with the highest priority to be sent. Regarding claim 9, Fakoorian and Joseph teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above. Fakoorian further teaches the first plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions and the second plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions are associated with different configured grants (configured grant duration for each ULCG [0051]-[0053] and [0091]-[0097]; Fig. 2) . Fakoorian does not explicitly teach each of the plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions being associated with a span. Joseph teaches each of the plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions being associated with a span (see Figure 14) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Joseph to the teachings of Fakoorian by utilizing a conflict resolution rule when a collision occurs. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow the data or channel with the highest priority to be sent. Regarding claim 10, Fakoorian and Joseph teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above. Fakoorian does not explicitly teach the first span includes all repetitions of uplink shared channel transmission occasions within the first configured grant period and the second span includes all repetitions of uplink shared channel transmission occasions within the second configured grant period. Joseph teaches the first span includes all repetitions of uplink shared channel transmission occasions within the first configured grant period and the second span includes all repetitions of uplink shared channel transmission occasions within the second configured grant period (see Figure 14) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Joseph to the teachings of Fakoorian by utilizing a conflict resolution rule when a collision occurs. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow the data or channel with the highest priority to be sent. Claims [15, 16, 17, 18] “network entity method” (base station method [0028]-[0033]) are rejected under the same reasoning as claims [1, 2, 3, 4] “UE method”, respectively. Claims [20, 21] “UE apparatus” are rejected under the same reasoning as claims [1, 2] “UE method”, respectively. Claims [26, 27] “network entity apparatus” are rejected under the same reasoning as claims [1, 2] “UE method”, respectively . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 11, 12, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fakoorian and Joseph in view of Non-Patent Literature (NPL) by Vivo (3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #119bis-e; R2-2209491) hereinafter Vivo . Regarding claim 11, Fakoorian and Joseph teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above. Fakoorian further teaches receiving, via the control signaling, an indication that the first plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions is associated with a first configured grant and the second plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions is associated with a second configured grant (semi-persistent scheduling used for indicating configured grant resources for each configured grant [0018]-[0019], [0051]-[0053], and [0091]-[0097]) , generating the first data packet and the second data packet in accordance with the configured grant period (transmitting packets based on the configured grants [0051]-[0053], and [0091]-[0097]) ; and transmitting the first data packet via the first subset of the first plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions and the second data packet via the second plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions in accordance with the configured grant period (transmitting packets based on the configured grants [0051]-[0053], and [0091]-[0097]) . Fakoorian and Joseph do not explicitly teach the first configured grant period and the second configured grant period partially overlap to create an effective configured grant period shorter than each of the first configured grant period and the second configured grant period; Vivo teaches wherein the first configured grant period and the second configured grant period partially overlap to create an effective configured grant period shorter than each of the first configured grant period and the second configured grant period (multiple configured grants overlapping and creating a combined configured grant with shorter period; pages 4-5) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Vivo to the teachings of Fakoorian and Lin . One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would enhance configured grant scheduling (Vivo page 1) . Regarding claim 12, Fakoorian and Joseph and Vivo teaches all the features of claim 11, as outlined above. Fakoorian further teaches transmitting the first data packet and the second data packet further comprises :transmitting respective portions of the first data packet via respective uplink shared channel transmission occasions of the first plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions (partial transmission using the respective occasion for each configured grant [0051]-[0053] and [0091]-[0097] ;Figs. 3-7) ; and transmitting respective portions of the second data packet via respective uplink shared channel transmission occasions of the second plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions (partial transmission using the respective occasion for each configured grant [0051]-[0053] and [0091]-[0097] ;Figs. 3-7) . Claims [ 23] “UE apparatus” is rejected under the same reasoning as claims [ 11] “UE method”, respectively. Claim [28] “network entity apparatus” is rejected under the same reasoning as claims [11] “UE method”, respectively . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 13-14, 24-25, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fakoorian and Joseph in view of Non-Patent Literature (NPL) by ZTE et al. (3GPP TSG-RAN WG1 Meeting #110; R1-2207062) hereinafter ZTE . Regarding claim 13, Fakoorian and Joseph teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above. Fakoorian and Joseph do not explicitly teach calculating a starting symbol associated with an uplink shared channel occasion of the first plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions or the second plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions in accordance with a dedicated range of system frame number values, wherein the dedicated range of system frame number values is a multiple of a duration of the first configured grant period or the second configured grant period, respectively. ZTE teaches calculating a starting symbol associated with an uplink shared channel occasion of the first plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions or the second plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions in accordance with a dedicated range of system frame number values (first occasion of a configured grant based on a predefined set of SFN; pages 2-4) , wherein the dedicated range of system frame number values is a multiple of a duration of the first configured grant period or the second configured grant period, respectively (SFNs multiple of the CG period; pages 2-4) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of ZTE to the teachings of Fakoorian and Joseph . One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would enhance capacity of configured grants (ZTE page 2) . Regarding claim 14, Fakoorian and Joseph teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above. Fakoorian and Joseph do not explicitly teach calculating a starting symbol associated with an uplink shared channel occasion of the first plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions or the second plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions in accordance with increasing or decreasing the starting symbol by a dedicated value each time a system frame number resets from a maximum value to a minimum value, wherein the dedicated value is based at least in part on a modulo operation of the maximum value by a duration of the first configured grant period or the second configured grant period. ZTE teaches calculating a starting symbol associated with an uplink shared channel occasion of the first plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions or the second plurality of uplink shared channel transmission occasions in accordance with increasing or decreasing the starting symbol by a dedicated value each time a system frame number resets from a maximum value to a minimum value (determining start of an occasion based on SFN reset; pages 2-4) , wherein the dedicated value is based at least in part on a modulo operation of the maximum value by a duration of the first configured grant period or the second configured grant period (determination based on modulo of configured grant duration; pages 2-4) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of ZTE to the teachings of Fakoorian and Joseph . One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would enhance capacity of configured grants (ZTE page 2) . Claims [24, 25] “UE apparatus” are rejected under the same reasoning as claims [13, 14] “UE method”, respectively. Claims [29, 30] “network entity apparatus” are rejected under the same reasoning as claims [13, 14] “UE method”, respectively. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER T WYLLIE whose telephone number is (571)270-3937. The examiner can normally be reached 4pm-11:30pm. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at (571)270-0422. 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. /CHRISTOPHER T WYLLIE/Examiner, Art Unit 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/168,411 Page 2 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/168,411 Page 3 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/168,411 Page 4 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/168,411 Page 5 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/168,411 Page 6 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/168,411 Page 7 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/168,411 Page 8 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/168,411 Page 9 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/168,411 Page 11 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/168,411 Page 13 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/168,411 Page 14 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/168,411 Page 15 Art Unit: 2465
Prosecution Insights