DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on 7 August 2025 has been entered. No claims are currently amended; no claims are cancelled; claims 1-14 are previously presented; no claims have been added. Claims 1-14 are pending and ready for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-3, filed 7 August 2025, with respect to “Claim Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 of claim 1” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Papasakellariou does not teach or suggest “in a case where the base station causes the communication terminal to transmit a data signal, the base station notifies the communication terminal of information about a demodulation reference signal to be transmitted together with a data signal.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Putting aside the antecedent basis issues of the claim stating “a data signal” multiple times in the above limitation, the applicant’s argument notes that the cited portions of Papasakellariou discloses the base station notifies to the communication terminal through DCI formats for scheduling retransmission after a failed initial transmission. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the base station notifying DMRS information for the initial data signal transmission) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Indeed, a retransmission of a data signal is a case where the base station causes the communication terminal to transmit the data signal, as this is typically triggered by the sending of a NACK, such as a HARQ-NACK. Additionally, as a further clarification on this case, the initial transmission of a data signal involves the base station scheduling resources via the DCI. However, this scheduling of resources only enables the UE to transmit data, but does not necessarily cause the transmission to occur. If the applicant wishes to discuss this further or disagree on the above points, the examiner invites the applicant to conduct an interview to address the objective of the invention and clarify any misunderstandings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Papasakellariou (US 2018/0070369 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Papasakellariou teaches a communication system comprising:
a base station (Papasakellariou, Fig. 1, BS 102); and
a communication terminal connected to the base station (Papasakellariou, Fig. 1, UE 111), wherein
in a case where the base station causes the communication terminal to transmit a data signal, the base station notifies the communication terminal of information about a demodulation reference signal to be transmitted together with a data signal (Papasakellariou, [0195]-[0203]; a gNB configures a UE with a CP to apply for transmissions with a valid TA at step 2010), and
the communication terminal transmits a data signal and a demodulation reference signal in accordance with the information provided from the base station (Papasakellariou, Fig. 21, [0204]-[0207]; a UE transmits a DMRS for demodulation of control information and of data information in a first symbol of the time slot 2110 in order to enable a serving gNB to obtain a channel estimate and demodulate without additional delay, where the UE transmits the control information in 2120 and data information in remaining symbols of the time slot).
Regarding claim 2, Papasakellariou teaches the communication system according to claim 1 above. Further, Papasakellariou teaches wherein in each of a case where the base station causes the communication terminal to transmit a data signal for the first time and a case where the base station causes the communication terminal to retransmit a data signal, the base station notifies the communication terminal of information about a demodulation reference signal to be transmitted together with a data signal (Papasakellariou, [0212]-[0214]; when a gNB detects the control information but fails to detect the data TB, the gNB schedule a retransmission of the data TB by transmitting a DCI format in a PDCCH, where the DCI format can include a TA command for the retransmission and the UE determines a transmission power to transmit DMRS, control information, and data information and CRC using the determined transmission power in the RBs during the time slot) .
Regarding claim 5, Papasakellariou teaches the communication system according to claim 1 above. Further, Papasakellariou teaches wherein in a case where a request for repeated transmission of a data signal is received from the communication terminal, the base station determines a content of repeated transmission of a data signal performed by the communication terminal on a basis of a content of the request (Papasakellariou, [0207]-[0210]; when a retransmission of a data TB from a UE is scheduled by a gNB, the data TB is encoded with a low code rate where retransmissions of a data TB can be configured by the gNB and does not need to include a new data indicator field).
Regarding claim 6, Papasakellariou teaches the communication system according to claim 1 above. Further, Papasakellariou teaches wherein the base station arranges a synchronization signal and a physical broadcast channel in different symbols and transmits the synchronization signal and the physical broadcast channel (Papasakellariou, [0150]; NR PBCH transmissions can occur in a different BW as the BW for transmissions of NR synchronization signals).
Regarding claim 7, Papasakellariou teaches the communication system according to claim 1 above. Further, Papasakellariou teaches wherein the base station repeatedly transmits a symbol in which the physical broadcast channel is arranged (Papasakellariou, [0142]; LTE eNB support repetitions of synchronization or broadcast signaling in predetermined resources).
Regarding claim 11, Papasakellariou teaches the communication system according to claim 1 above. Further, Papasakellariou teaches wherein in a case where a determined condition is satisfied while the communication terminal is performing repeated transmission of the message, the base station instructs the communication terminal to end the repeated transmission (Papasakellariou, [0180]-[0185]; when the gNB fails to detect the information from UEs with the second service type, the gNB can schedule respective retransmissions either for the respective data TBs or only for interfered data CBs).
Regarding claim 13, Papasakellariou teaches the communication system according to claim 1 above. Further, Papasakellariou teaches wherein the base station instructs the communication terminal on transmission power when the communication terminal is caused to retransmit a message in a random access process for the communication terminal to connect to the base station (Papasakellariou, [0212]-[0217];the gNB can schedule a retransmission of the data TB by transmitting a DCI format in a PDCCH, where the DCI format can include a TPC command for the retransmission).
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.
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 3, 4, 8-10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papasakellariou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Intel Corporation, “Discussion on potential techniques for PUSCH coverage enhancement”, 3GPP DRAFT; R1-2005889, (2020-08), hereafter referred Intel. Intel was cited by applicant’s IDS filed 2 December 2024.
Regarding claim 3, Papasakellariou teaches the communication system according to claim 1 above. Papasakellariou does not expressly teach wherein in a case where the communication terminal repeatedly transmits a data signal, the base station performs control such that the number of demodulation reference signals to be transmitted together with a data signal in second and subsequent transmissions is smaller than the number of demodulation reference signals to be transmitted together with a data signal in a first transmission.
However, Intel teaches wherein in a case where the communication terminal repeatedly transmits a data signal, the base station performs control such that the number of demodulation reference signals to be transmitted together with a data signal in second and subsequent transmissions is smaller than the number of demodulation reference signals to be transmitted together with a data signal in a first transmission (Intel, Section 2.4; flexible DMRS pattern including high DMRS density, such as 4 DMRS symbols can be configured for PUSCH transmission, we can consider DMRS-less operation in certain slots during PUSCH repetition where unused DMRS symbols can be allocated for data transmission).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Papasakellariou to include the above recited limitations as taught by Intel in order to reduce code rate and improve PUSCH link budget (Intel, Section 2.4).
Regarding claim 4, Papasakellariou teaches the communication system according to claim 1 above. Papasakellariou does not expressly teach wherein in a case where the demodulation reference signal is unable to be arranged on a physical uplink shared channel in accordance with the information provided from the base station, the communication terminal transmits the demodulation reference signal that does not include the demodulation reference signal, and in a case where a data signal is received on a physical uplink shared channel that does not include a demodulation reference signal, the base station performs a demodulation process on the received data signal by using a demodulation reference signal already received.
However, Intel teaches wherein in a case where the demodulation reference signal is unable to be arranged on a physical uplink shared channel in accordance with the information provided from the base station, the communication terminal transmits the demodulation reference signal that does not include the demodulation reference signal (Intel, Section 2.4; in the case of DMRS-less operation in certain slots during PUSCH repetition, unused DMRS symbols can be allocated for data transmission), and in a case where a data signal is received on a physical uplink shared channel that does not include a demodulation reference signal, the base station performs a demodulation process on the received data signal by using a demodulation reference signal already received (Intel, Section 2.4; advanced receiver including cross-slot channel estimation may be implemented in conjunction with DMRS-less scheme to ensure decoding performance).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Papasakellariou to include the above recited limitations as taught by Intel in order to reduce code rate and improve PUSCH link budget (Intel, Section 2.4).
Regarding claim 8, Papasakellariou teaches the communication system according to claim 1 above. Papasakellariou does not expressly teach wherein the base station repeatedly executes transmission of scheduling information for allocating a resource to the communication terminal by using different beams in a random access process for the communication terminal to connect to the base station.
However, Intel teaches wherein the base station repeatedly executes transmission of scheduling information for allocating a resource to the communication terminal by using different beams in a random access process for the communication terminal to connect to the base station (Intel, Fig. 5, Section 2.3; for FR2, multi-TRP or multi-beam based uplink transmission may be employed, where Figure 5 shows different Tx beams for first and second part of repetitions).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Papasakellariou to include the above recited limitations as taught by Intel in order to help in reducing blockage and improving reliability and link budget of uplink transmissions (Intel, Section 2.3).
Regarding claim 9, Papasakellariou teaches the communication system according to claim 1 above. Papasakellariou does not expressly teach wherein the base station repeatedly executes transmission of a response message to the communication terminal by using different beams in a random access process for the communication terminal to connect to the base station.
However, Intel teaches wherein the base station repeatedly executes transmission of a response message to the communication terminal by using different beams in a random access process for the communication terminal to connect to the base station (Intel, Fig. 5, Section 2.3; for FR2, multi-TRP or multi-beam based uplink transmission may be employed, where Figure 5 shows different Tx beams for first and second part of repetitions).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Papasakellariou to include the above recited limitations as taught by Intel in order to help in reducing blockage and improving reliability and link budget of uplink transmissions (Intel, Section 2.3).
Regarding claim 10, Papasakellariou teaches the communication system according to claim 1 above. Papasakellariou does not expressly teach wherein the base station instructs the communication terminal on the number of times a message is to be retransmitted by the communication terminal in a random access process for the communication terminal to connect to the base station, and on the number of times the message is to be repeatedly transmitted in each of transmission processes of the message.
However, Intel teaches wherein the base station instructs the communication terminal on the number of times a message is to be retransmitted by the communication terminal in a random access process for the communication terminal to connect to the base station, and on the number of times the message is to be repeatedly transmitted in each of transmission processes of the message (Intel, Section 3; as presented in our companion contribution, for rural scenario with long distance with 30km target ISD, uplink transmission needs to be improved including Msg3 for 4-step RACH, where coverage for Msg3 can be improved by employing HARQ retransmission. One straightforward solution is to employ slot aggregation for Msg3 transmission for 4-step RACH. In particular, similar to dynamic indication of aggregation level of PUSCH, the number of repetitions of Msg3 transmission may be explicitly indicated in the RAR UL grant).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Papasakellariou to include the above recited limitations as taught by Intel in order to reduce the latency for 4-step RACH procedure (Intel, Section 3).
Regarding claim 12, Papasakellariou teaches the communication system according to claim 1 above. Papasakellariou does not expressly teach wherein the base station determines the number of times the repeated transmission is to be performed on a basis that which group of predetermined groups a message transmitted from the communication terminal at a start of the random access process belongs to.
However, Intel teaches wherein the base station determines the number of times the repeated transmission is to be performed on a basis that which group of predetermined groups a message transmitted from the communication terminal at a start of the random access process belongs to (Intel, Section 3; as presented in our companion contribution, for rural scenario with long distance with 30km target ISD, uplink transmission needs to be improved including Msg3 for 4-step RACH, where coverage for Msg3 can be improved by employing HARQ retransmission. One straightforward solution is to employ slot aggregation for Msg3 transmission for 4-step RACH. In particular, similar to dynamic indication of aggregation level of PUSCH, the number of repetitions of Msg3 transmission may be explicitly indicated in the RAR UL grant).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Papasakellariou to include the above recited limitations as taught by Intel in order to reduce the latency for 4-step RACH procedure (Intel, Section 3).
Regarding claim 14, Papasakellariou teaches the communication system according to claim 1 above. Papasakellariou does not expressly teach wherein the base station notifies the communication terminal of information about coverage enhancement at a predetermined timing, and when receiving notification of the information about coverage enhancement from the base station, the communication terminal holds the information, and in a case where an initial access process to the base station is required, the communication terminal performs the initial access process by using the held information.
However, Intel teaches wherein the base station notifies the communication terminal of information about coverage enhancement at a predetermined timing, and when receiving notification of the information about coverage enhancement from the base station, the communication terminal holds the information, and in a case where an initial access process to the base station is required, the communication terminal performs the initial access process by using the held information (Intel, Section 3; as presented in our companion contribution, for rural scenario with long distance with 30km target ISD, uplink transmission needs to be improved including Msg3 for 4-step RACH, where coverage for Msg3 can be improved by employing HARQ retransmission. One straightforward solution is to employ slot aggregation for Msg3 transmission for 4-step RACH. In particular, similar to dynamic indication of aggregation level of PUSCH, the number of repetitions of Msg3 transmission may be explicitly indicated in the RAR UL grant, where Msg3 repetition can be considered for coverage enhancement for 4-step RACH procedure).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Papasakellariou to include the above recited limitations as taught by Intel in order to reduce the latency for 4-step RACH procedure (Intel, Section 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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 RODRICK MAK whose telephone number is (571)270-0284. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 am - 5:30 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 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.
/R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2416
/NOEL R BEHARRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2416
