DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to applicant’s response filed under 37 C.F.R. §1.111 in response to a non-final office action. Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 19, 20, and 12 have been amended; Claims 16, and 18 have been canceled; Claims 21 and 22 have been added. Claims1-15, 17, 19-22 are subject to examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-15, 17 and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ly et al. (Ly hereafter) (US 20240008093 A1) in view of Lin (Lin hereafter) (US 20230156805 A1) and in further view of Irukulapati et al. (Irukulapati hereafter) (US 20210235503 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Ly teaches, A method for information transmission, comprising:
determining (identifies a frequency hopping configuration), by a terminal device according to first indication information (associated with intra-slot frequency hopping and a second frequency hopping indication associated with inter-slot frequency), transmission parameters (frequency hopping considerations for transmission of repetitions) of a message Msg3 (for Msg3 PUSCH repetitions) (Ly;[0090] The UE 115 may identify, based at least in part on the first frequency hopping indication or the second frequency hopping indication, a frequency hopping configuration for transmission of repetitions of an uplink transmission responsive to the grant. [0091] a grant comprising a first frequency hopping indication associated with intra-slot frequency hopping and a second frequency hopping indication associated with inter-slot frequency hopping that identifies a frequency hopping configuration for transmission of repetitions of an uplink transmission from the UE 115 responsive to the grant. [0092] FIG. 2 illustrates an example of a wireless communication system 200 that supports frequency hopping considerations for Msg3 PUSCH repetitions),
wherein the transmission parameters comprise
a frequency hopping manner of a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) in which the message Msg3 is carried (Ly; [0099] To support frequency hopping of the PUSCH transmissions (e.g., the uplink/RACH Msg3 transmissions), the frequency hopping may be configured in RAR/Msg2 for the RACH Msg3 initial transmission).
or
at least one of a repeated transmission parameter
{ Office’s Note: Because of the alternative claim language such as “either...or”, only one of the alternative limitations has been analyzed by the examiner}
Ly fails to explicitly teach, wherein the first indication information indicates the repeated transmission parameter and whether to perform intra-slot frequency hopping
However, in the same field of endeavor Lin teaches, wherein the first indication information indicates the repeated transmission parameter and whether to perform intra-slot frequency hopping (Lin; [0086] For a msgA PUSCH transmission in CBRA with frequency hopping in a slot, a flag such as msgA-intraSlotFrequencyHopping may be configured per BWP for enabling ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Ly to include the above recited limitations as taught by Lin in order to improved transmission efficiency and flexibility (Lin; [0088]).
Ly-Lin fails to explicitly teach, wherein the method comprising: in response to the first indication information indicating not to perform the intra-slot frequency hopping,
determining, by the terminal device based on a third information field in a random access response (RAR) message, a medium access control (MAC) control unit (MAC CE), or downlink control information (DCI) received from a network device, whether to perform inter-slot frequency hopping.
Irukulapati teaches, wherein the method comprising: in response to the first indication information indicating not to perform (FH=0 means no frequency hopping) the intra-slot frequency hopping (FH=1 always means intra-slot) (Irukulapati; [0154] FH=1 always means intra-slot irrespective of aggregation Factor; and [0155] FH=0 means no frequency hopping irrespective of aggregation Factor),
determining, by the terminal device based on a third information field in a random access response (RAR) message, a medium access control (MAC) control unit (MAC CE), or downlink control information (DCI) received from a network device (received in the physical downlink control channel (PDCCH)), whether to perform inter-slot frequency hopping (When aggregation >1, FH=1 means inter-slot) (Irukulapati; [0151] When aggregation >1, FH=1 means inter-slot; and [0152] FH=0 means no frequency hopping irrespective of aggregation Factor…[0157] The transmission of Msg3/PUSCH FH=1 means inter-slot. (The hopping flag is received in the physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) carrying Msg3/PUSCH retransmission information.)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Ly-Lin to include the above recited limitations as taught by Irukulapati in order to control signaling based on the utilized resource sequence (Irukulapati; [0079]).
Regarding claim 12 Ly teaches, A method for information transmission, comprising:
transmitting by a network device (identifies a frequency hopping configuration), first indication information (associated with intra-slot frequency hopping and a second frequency hopping indication associated with inter-slot frequency), for indicating transmission parameters (frequency hopping considerations) of a message Msg3 (for Msg3 PUSCH repetitions) (Ly;[0090] The UE 115 may identify, based at least in part on the first frequency hopping indication or the second frequency hopping indication, a frequency hopping configuration for transmission of repetitions of an uplink transmission responsive to the grant. [0091] a grant comprising a first frequency hopping indication associated with intra-slot frequency hopping and a second frequency hopping indication associated with inter-slot frequency hopping that identifies a frequency hopping configuration for transmission of repetitions of an uplink transmission from the UE 115 responsive to the grant. [0092] FIG. 2 illustrates an example of a wireless communication system 200 that supports frequency hopping considerations for Msg3 PUSCH repetitions), wherein the transmission parameters comprise a frequency hopping manner of a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) in which the message Msg3 is carried (Ly; [0099] To support frequency hopping of the PUSCH transmissions (e.g., the uplink/RACH Msg3 transmissions), the frequency hopping may be configured in RAR/Msg2 for the RACH Msg3 initial transmission).
or
at least one of a repeated transmission parameter
{ Office’s Note: Because of the alternative claim language such as “either...or”, only one of the alternative limitations has been analyzed by the examiner}
Ly fails to explicitly teach, wherein the first indication information indicates the repeated transmission parameter and whether to perform intra-slot frequency hopping
However, in the same field of endeavor Lin teaches, wherein the first indication information indicates the repeated transmission parameter and whether to perform intra-slot frequency hopping (Lin; [0086] For a msgA PUSCH transmission in CBRA with frequency hopping in a slot, a flag such as msgA-intraSlotFrequencyHopping may be configured per BWP for enabling ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Ly to include the above recited limitations as taught by Lin in order to improved transmission efficiency and flexibility (Lin; [0088]).
Ly-Lin fails to explicitly teach, wherein the method comprising: in response to the first indication information indicating not to perform the intra-slot frequency hopping,
determining, by the terminal device based on a third information field in a random access response (RAR) message, a medium access control (MAC) control unit (MAC CE), or downlink control information (DCI) received from a network device, whether to perform inter-slot frequency hopping.
Irukulapati teaches, wherein the method comprising: in response to the first indication information indicating not to perform (FH=0 means no frequency hopping) the intra-slot frequency hopping (FH=1 always means intra-slot) (Irukulapati; [0154] FH=1 always means intra-slot irrespective of aggregation Factor; and [0155] FH=0 means no frequency hopping irrespective of aggregation Factor),
determining, by the terminal device based on a third information field in a random access response (RAR) message, a medium access control (MAC) control unit (MAC CE), or downlink control information (DCI) received from a network device (received in the physical downlink control channel (PDCCH)), whether to perform inter-slot frequency hopping (When aggregation >1, FH=1 means inter-slot) (Irukulapati; [0151] When aggregation >1, FH=1 means inter-slot; and [0152] FH=0 means no frequency hopping irrespective of aggregation Factor…[0157] The transmission of Msg3/PUSCH FH=1 means inter-slot. (The hopping flag is received in the physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) carrying Msg3/PUSCH retransmission information.)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Ly-Lin to include the above recited limitations as taught by Irukulapati in order to control signaling based on the utilized resource sequence (Irukulapati; [0079]).
Regarding claim 20 Ly teaches, A terminal device comprising a processor and a memory for storing a computer program capable of running on the processor, wherein the processor is configured to run the computer program to implement (Ly;[0147] Fig.9 a processor and memory coupled with the processor may be configured to perform one or more of the functions described herein (e.g., by executing, by the processor, instructions stored in the memory)) :
determining (identifies a frequency hopping configuration), according to first indication information (associated with intra-slot frequency hopping and a second frequency hopping indication associated with inter-slot frequency), transmission parameters (frequency hopping considerations) of a message Msg3 (for Msg3 PUSCH repetitions) (Ly;[0090] The UE 115 may identify, based at least in part on the first frequency hopping indication or the second frequency hopping indication, a frequency hopping configuration for transmission of repetitions of an uplink transmission responsive to the grant. [0091] a grant comprising a first frequency hopping indication associated with intra-slot frequency hopping and a second frequency hopping indication associated with inter-slot frequency hopping that identifies a frequency hopping configuration for transmission of repetitions of an uplink transmission from the UE 115 responsive to the grant. [0092] FIG. 2 illustrates an example of a wireless communication system 200 that supports frequency hopping considerations for Msg3 PUSCH repetitions), wherein the transmission parameters comprise a frequency hopping manner of a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) in which the message Msg3 is carried (Ly; [0099] To support frequency hopping of the PUSCH transmissions (e.g., the uplink/RACH Msg3 transmissions), the frequency hopping may be configured in RAR/Msg2 for the RACH Msg3 initial transmission).
or
at least one of a repeated transmission parameter
{ Office’s Note: Because of the alternative claim language such as “either...or”, only one of the alternative limitations has been analyzed by the examiner}
Ly fails to explicitly teach, wherein the first indication information indicates the repeated transmission parameter and whether to perform intra-slot frequency hopping
However, in the same field of endeavor Lin teaches, wherein the first indication information indicates the repeated transmission parameter and whether to perform intra-slot frequency hopping (Lin; [0086] For a msgA PUSCH transmission in CBRA with frequency hopping in a slot, a flag such as msgA-intraSlotFrequencyHopping may be configured per BWP for enabling ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Ly to include the above recited limitations as taught by Lin in order to improved transmission efficiency and flexibility (Lin; [0088]).
Ly-Lin fails to explicitly teach, wherein the method comprising: in response to the first indication information indicating not to perform the intra-slot frequency hopping,
determining, by the terminal device based on a third information field in a random access response (RAR) message, a medium access control (MAC) control unit (MAC CE), or downlink control information (DCI) received from a network device, whether to perform inter-slot frequency hopping.
Irukulapati teaches, wherein the method comprising: in response to the first indication information indicating not to perform (FH=0 means no frequency hopping) the intra-slot frequency hopping (FH=1 always means intra-slot) (Irukulapati; [0154] FH=1 always means intra-slot irrespective of aggregation Factor; and [0155] FH=0 means no frequency hopping irrespective of aggregation Factor),
determining, by the terminal device based on a third information field in a random access response (RAR) message, a medium access control (MAC) control unit (MAC CE), or downlink control information (DCI) received from a network device (received in the physical downlink control channel (PDCCH)), whether to perform inter-slot frequency hopping (When aggregation >1, FH=1 means inter-slot) (Irukulapati; [0151] When aggregation >1, FH=1 means inter-slot; and [0152] FH=0 means no frequency hopping irrespective of aggregation Factor…[0157] The transmission of Msg3/PUSCH FH=1 means inter-slot. (The hopping flag is received in the physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) carrying Msg3/PUSCH retransmission information.)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Ly-Lin to include the above recited limitations as taught by Irukulapati in order to control signaling based on the utilized resource sequence (Irukulapati; [0079]).
Regarding claims 2 and 13 Ly-Lin-Irukulapati teaches, the claims 1 and 12,
Ly further teaches, wherein the repeated transmission parameter comprises a number of time domain units for repeated transmission (Ly; [0113] inter-slot frequency hopping is used for repetitions of the uplink transmission (e.g., Msg3 305) across four slots, the UE may transmit a repetition of Msg3 305-a during slot n using a starting RB 310.).
Regarding claims 3 and 14 Ly-Lin-Irukulapati teaches, the claims 2 and 13
Ly further teaches,wherein the time domain unit comprises any one of a slot (Ly; [0113] the next repetitions of Msg3 305-b, Msg3 305-c and Msg3 305-d transmitted during slot n+1, slot n+2, and slot n+3, respectively, may use the same starting resource block and the same frequency offset.).
Regarding claims 4 and 15 Ly-Lin-Irukulapati teaches, the claims 1, and 12
Ly further teaches, wherein the first indication information indicates the repeated transmission parameter and a frequency hopping pattern corresponding to the frequency hopping manner (Ly; [0116] The grant may be responsive to a RACH preamble transmitted by the UE and may also carry or otherwise convey a first frequency hopping indication/flag for intra-slot frequency hopping and a second frequency hopping indication/flag for inter-slot frequency hopping for the uplink transmission with repetitions).
Regarding claim 6 Ly-Lin-Irukulapati teaches, The method of claim 4,
Ly further teaches, wherein the frequency hopping pattern is determined by a frequency hopping indication field in a random access response (RAR) message (Ly; [0091] in response to the RACH preamble, a grant including a first frequency hopping indication associated with intra-slot frequency hopping and a second frequency hopping indication associated with inter-slot frequency hopping that identifies a frequency hopping configuration for transmission of repetitions of an uplink transmission from the UE responsive to the grant).
Regarding claim 7 Ly-Lin-Irukulapati teaches, the method of claim 1,
Ly further teaches, wherein the first indication information indicates the repeated transmission parameter and whether to perform frequency hopping transmission (Ly; [0099] the repetition configuration (e.g., the number of repetitions, frequency hopping, etc.) may be indicated in the RAR for the initial RACH Msg3 transmission).
Regarding claim 8 Ly-Lin-Irukulapati teaches, The method of claim 7,
Ly-Lin- Irukulapati fails to explicitly teach, wherein whether to perform the frequency hopping transmission is determined by a frequency hopping indication field in the RAR message the frequency hopping indication field being different from the third information field.
However, in the same field of endeavor Lin teaches, wherein whether to perform the frequency hopping transmission is determined by a frequency hopping indication field in the RAR message the frequency hopping indication field being different from the third information field (Lin; [0093] As an example, two parameters msgA-intraSlot Frequency Hopping and msgA-Hopping Bits as shown in Table 3 may be provided in a specific information element (IE) such as RACH-ConfigDedicated IE for the frequency hopping configuration of msgA PUSCH transmissions of UEs in CFRA. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Ly-Irukulapati to include the above recited limitations as taught by Lin in order to improved transmission efficiency and flexibility (Lin; [0088]).
Regarding claim 9 Ly-Lin-Irukulapati teaches, The method of claim 7,
Ly further teaches, wherein the terminal device determines the frequency hopping manner in response to the first indication information indicating to perform the frequency hopping transmission, and the frequency hopping manner comprises intra-slot frequency hopping or inter-slot frequency hopping (Ly; [0102] The inter- and intra-slot frequency hopping indications/flags carried or otherwise conveyed in the grant may be used by UE 210 to identify or otherwise determine a frequency hopping configuration for the initial transmission and/or retransmission(s) of the uplink transmission (e.g., the RACH Msg3 transmission via PUSCH).).
Regarding claim 10 Ly-Lin- Irukulapati teaches, The method of claim 9,
Ly-Irukulapati fails to explicitly teach, wherein the frequency hopping manner is determined by a second information field in the RAR message, and the second information field being different from the frequency hopping indication field;
or
the frequency hopping manner is determined by the MAC CE;
or
the frequency hopping manner is determined by the DCI
However, in the same field of endeavor Lin teaches, the frequency hopping manner is determined by downlink control information (DCI) (Lin; [0085] For the frequency hopping of normal PUSCH dynamically scheduled by DCI, a specific parameter such as a frequency hopping flag may be provided in DCI for enabling of frequency hopping, and the information element (IE)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Ly to include the above recited limitations as taught by Lin in order to improved transmission efficiency and flexibility (Lin; [0088])
{ Office’s Note: Because of the alternative claim language such as “either...or”, only one of the alternative limitations has been analyzed by the examiner}
Regarding claim 17 Ly-Lin- Irukulapati teaches, The method of claim 16,
Ly further teaches, wherein the frequency hopping pattern is determined by a frequency hopping indication field in a random access response (RAR) message (Ly; [0021] in response to the RACH preamble, a grant including a first frequency hopping indication associated with intra-slot frequency hopping and a second frequency hopping indication associated with inter-slot frequency hopping that identifies a frequency hopping configuration for transmission of repetitions of an uplink transmission from the UE responsive to the grant)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ly-Lin- Irukulapati as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Wong et al. (Wong hereafter) (US 20210298054 A1).
Regarding claim 5 Ly-Lin- Irukulapati teaches, the method of claim 4,
Ly further teaches, wherein the frequency hopping pattern comprises a first-hop transmission in a first slot having a same frequency domain position as a second-hop transmission in a second slot (Ly; [0128] See fig. 6 The UE may transmit a second repetition of Msg3 605-c and Msg3 605-d using the same starting RB and the same frequency offset as the Msg3 605-b);
Ly-Lin-Irukulapati fails to explicitly teach, wherein the second slot is adjacent to the first slot, and the second slot is located previously the first slot, and each of the first slot and the second slot has two-hop transmission
However, in the same field of endeavor Wong teaches, wherein the second slot is adjacent to the first slot, and the second slot is located previously the first slot, and each of the first slot and the second slot has two-hop transmission (Wong; [0101] FIG. 9. When a UE is indicated at 35 (by the eNodeB or gNB) to use the 1.sup.st set of uplink channel transmission parameters,
frequency hopping is always applied to the transmission at 36 and the frequency hops between mini-slots, whilst for the 2.sup.nd set of transmission parameters, the frequency hopping is enabled by DCI or RRC signalling and the frequency hops between the adjacent slots).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Ly-Lin-Irukulapati to include the above recited limitations as taught by Wong in order to apply repetitions to the uplink channel (Wong; [0098]).
or
the frequency hopping pattern comprises a first-hop transmission in a first slot having a same frequency domain position as a first-hop transmission in a second slot, and
wherein the second slot is adjacent to the first slot, and the second slot is located previously the first slot, and each of the first slot and the second slot has two-hop transmission.
{ Office’s Note: Because of the alternative claim language such as “either...or”, only one of the alternative limitations has been analyzed by the examiner}
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ly-Lin- Irukulapati as applied to claim 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Xiong et al (Xiong hereafter) (US 20220116999 A1).
Regarding claims 11 and 19 Ly-Lin- Irukulapati teaches, The claims 1 and 12,
Ly-Lin- Irukulapati fails to explicitly teach, wherein the repeated transmission parameter is determined by a fourth information field in the RAR message, and the fourth information field being different from an information field for indicating the frequency hopping manner;
or
the repeated transmission parameter is determined by a medium access control (MAC) control unit (MAC CE); or
the repeated transmission parameter is determined by the DCI.
However, in the same field of endeavor Xiong teaches, the repeated transmission parameter is determined by the DCI. (Xiong; [0122]the UE interprets the time-frequency resource configuration in the uplink grant according to the frequency hopping mode (intra-slot or inter-slot) and the frequency domain offset (or frequencyHoppingOffset, or frequency offset) configured in the detected DCI … a BWP index and/or a repetition indication, the UE transmits, on the indicated BWP and/or according to the indicated number of repetitions and repetition manners, the data on the time-frequency resources indicated by the uplink grant;).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Ly-Lin- Irukulapati to include the above recited limitations as taught by Xiong in order to performs the subsequent operations according to the information carried in the RAR (Xiong; [0147]).
{ Office’s Note: Because of the alternative claim language such as “either...or”, only one of the alternative limitations has been analyzed by the examiner}
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ly-Lin- Irukulapati as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yin (Yin hereafter) (US 20230060179 A1).
Regarding claim 21 Ly-Lin- Irukulapati teaches, The method of claim 1,
Ly-Lin- Irukulapati fails to explicitly teach, further comprising: if the first indication information indicates to perform the intra-slot frequency hopping, ignoring, by the terminal device, the indication of whether to perform the inter- slot frequency hopping;
if the first indication information indicates not to perform the intra-slot frequency hopping, determining, by the terminal device, parameters of the inter-slot frequency hopping.
However, in the same field of endeavor Yin teaches, if the first indication information indicates to perform the intra-slot frequency hopping, ignoring, by the terminal device, the indication of whether to perform the inter- slot frequency hopping (Yin; [0025] [0026] The RRC configuration may indicate frequency hopping configurations for the sub slot-based PUCCH repetition. Existing inter-slot and intra-slot frequency hopping parameters are reused for different cases to provide slot level, sub slot level or PUCCH resource level frequency hopping. [0102] For PUCCH repetition, inter-slot frequency hopping can be enabled/disabled by an inter-slot FrequencyHopping parameter in the PUCCH-FormatConfig information element (IE). For a single PUCCH resource, intra-slot frequency hopping can be enabled/disabled by the intraSlotFrequencyHopping parameter in the PUCCH-Resource IE.); and
if the first indication information indicates not to perform the intra-slot frequency hopping, determining, by the terminal device, parameters of the inter-slot frequency hopping ([0026] New parameters are defined to explicitly configure the frequency hopping methods at slot level, sub slot level or PUCCH resource level frequency hopping. [0103] For multi-slot PUCCH transmissions (e.g., PUCCH repetitions), if inter-slot frequency hopping is enabled,
frequency hopping is applied at each slot, and intra-slot frequency hopping is disabled regardless the configuration) ([0105-0122]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Ly-Lin- Irukulapati to include the above recited limitations as taught by Yin in order to determine configuration for a sub slot-based physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) repetition for ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC) transmissions (Yin; [0024]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ly-Lin-Irukulapati as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (Li233 hereafter) (US 20220116999 A1).
Regarding claim 22 Ly-Lin-Irukulapati teaches,The method of claim 1,
Ly-Lin-Irukulapati fails to explicitly teach, wherein if the repeated transmission parameter is determined by the MAC CE, the repeated transmission parameter is indicated by an information field of repetition indication
or
by a reserved information field
However, in the same field of endeavor Li233 teaches, wherein if the repeated transmission parameter is determined by the MAC CE, the repeated transmission parameter is indicated by an information field of repetition indication (Li233; [0110-0114] When the number of repetitions is configured by the high layer, the MAC CE further provides an indication of actual numbers for the inter-slot/intra-slot PUCCH repetitions. The actual number of repetitions is not larger than the number of repetitions configured by high layer. For example, if number of repetitions configured by the high layer is 8, the actual number of repetitions indicated by the MAC CE can be 2, 4, or 8. …[0114] the repetition type cannot be implicitly indicated, one field may be added to explicitly indicate the repetition type (i.e. inter-slot or inter-slot repetition). The field may be added in the high layer signaling/MAC CE/DCI).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to create the invention of Ly-Lin-Irukulapati to include the above recited limitations as taught by Li233 in order to support PUCCH repetitions (Li233; [0009]).
{ Office’s Note: Because of the alternative claim language such as “either...or”, only one of the alternative limitations has been analyzed by the examiner}
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 WILFRED THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0353. The examiner can normally be reached Mon -Thurs 9:00 am-4:00 pm.
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 R 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.
/W. T/ Examiner, Art Unit 2416
/NOEL R BEHARRY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2416
Prosecution Insights