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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 5, 226 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments dated January 5, 2026 with respect to claim(s) 1-14, and 16-21 have been considered but are not persuasive.
In the remarks, applicant argues, in substance, that Takahashi does not disclose the invention as claimed, specifically that Takahasi fails to disclose a slot-by-slot determination as to whether each slot of a set of slots (including a special type slot) satisfies a condition for PUSCH transmission. The Office disagrees.
As an initial matter, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation taken in light of the specification. The claim merely states that the “a condition”, however does not further define what this “condition” is. As understood from the specification the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘condition’ is that the UL slot is ‘available’. This is similar to how the claimed ‘condition’ is used in paragraph 82 of the instant specification. The claim fails to identify how this ‘condition’ is met, only that it is met. Differentiating that Takahashi allegedly identifies this availability by the configuration is irrelevant.
As to the argument that Takahashi only looks at symbol availability within a single slot, this is incorrect. Takahashi clearly shows identifying symbol availability across slots. Figure 19 and col. 45 lines 28-39 shows identifying symbols across multiple slots. Since Takahashi is able to determine whether symbols in various slots are available, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, it can be understood that each uplink slot is determined to satisfy a condition.
As shown below Takahashi shows that the set of slots includes a special type slot. As interpreted in light of the specification (paragraphs 50-51) the term “special type slot” is interpreted to mean a slot with Uplink (UL) and flexible symbols. Takashi clearly shows (See Figs. 5 and 6) slots can be configured with downlink, flexible, and uplink symbols (specifically Fig. 5 ref B, C, D, show all three symbols configured in Slots 2, 4, and 6 respectively).
As such, Applicant’s response is not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding exemplary claim 1, the claim recites that the set of UL slots includes a special type slot in lines 12-13, however in line 17 the claim states that the UL slot that satisfies the condition, “including the special type slot”. It cannot be understood what is meant by “including the special type slot, as it was the set of UL slots which included a special type slot, not each UL slot that satisfies the condition. Similar issues arise from the similar recitation in line 19 of claim 1 as well. For examination purposes it is interpreted that the set of UL slots includes a special type slot, and that the UL slot satisfying the condition may or may not comprise said special type slot.
Claim 9 and 16 also have similar issues and are rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claims 2-14 and 17-21 depend from claims 1, 9 and 16 respectively and therefore inherit the rejections above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-14 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takahashi et al. (USPN 12273894) (hereinafter Takahashi) (cited by Office in previous communication).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi teaches a user equipment (UE) (i.e. terminal apparatus 1A) for wireless communication, comprising:
at least one memory (col. 61, lines 28-36); and
at least one processor (i.e. CPU) coupled to the at least one memory (col. 61, lines 28-36), the at least one processor configured to cause the UE to:
receive downlink control information (DCI) including a time domain resource assignment field (i.e. base station may use DCI to perform scheduling such that the terminal apparatus transmits the PUSCH; The terminal apparatus may select one PUSCH time domain resource allocation configuration…. based on the value indicated in the time domain resource assignment field included in the DCI scheduling the PUSCH) (col. 28, lines 15-36; also see col. 34, lines 21-31);
determine, based at least in part on the time domain resource assignment field, whether each uplink (UL) slot of a set of UL slots satisfies a condition (i.e. is available) associated with transmission of a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission of a set of PUSCH transmissions (Fig. 16 and col. 36, lines 23-col. 37, line 5 discloses determining which slots are available for transmitting PUSCH based on the time domain resource assignment field in the DCI Fig. 20: shows symbols available that are available for transmission of the PUSCHs; col. 37, lines 17-25 determine the symbols (i.e. resources in each UL slot) marked as downlink are excluded from the resources available for the PUSCH transmission), wherein the set of UL slots includes a special type slot including at least one downlink symbol (Fig. 5, Slot (b) showing Downlink, FLEXIBLE, and Uplink symbols, also see Figs. 6 and 16);
select, based at least in part on the time domain resource assignment field, a respective one or more time domain resources from each UL slot that satisfies the condition including the special type slot (col. 37, line 64 to col. 38, line 8, identify multiple temporary PUSCH resources based on resource allocation information and the higher layer slot format configuration included in the DCI); and
transmit UL data via the selected respective one or more time domain resources in each UL slot including the special type slot, the UL data corresponding to the set of PUSCH transmissions (col. 40, lines 29-33: base station apparatus can perform processing for receiving multiple PUSCHs in PUSCH resources; col. 47, lines 39-32: terminal transmits the PUSCH in each of the multiple PUSCH resources determined/identified).
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi discloses the set of UL slots includes a special type slot, and wherein the special type slot includes the at least one DL symbol and at least one of one or more flexible symbols (Fig. 5, Slot (b) showing Downlink, FLEXIBLE, and Uplink symbols, also see Figs. 6 and 16).
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi discloses the special type slot includes a set of consecutive symbols in a time domain, and wherein the set of consecutive symbols includes: at least one flexible symbol and at least one UL symbol; one or more flexible symbols; or one or more UL symbols (See Fig 16).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Takahashi discloses a maximum symbol total number of the set of consecutive symbols (i.e. duration) is greater than or equal to a sum of a configured value, configured by RRC signaling, and a value associated with receiving transmission transition time, and wherein the value associated with receiving- transmission transition time is greater than or equal to 0 (col. 43, line 66 to col. 44, line 40 and Fig 18b shows a starting symbol and duration with an associated guard symbols configured based on subcarrier spacing or notified based on RRC parameter or DCI).
Regarding claim 6, Takahashi teaches to select the respective one or more time domain resources at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to select, in a slot within the set of UL slots, an available symbol set one or more of: a set of available symbols of a first occurrence in a time domain (Fig. 18b and 18c show the UL resources are selected upon the first occurrence of the available slots after the downlink slots).
Regarding claim 7, Takahashi teaches the starting symbol in each UL slot is determined by a UL symbol of a first occurrence in the time domain within the available symbol set (see fig. 18b and 18c showing starting symbol is the first UL symbol that is available).
Regarding claim 8, Takahashi teaches wherein the margin symbol is determined by at least one of: radio resource control (RRC) signaling; receiving-transmission transition time; a duration of one or more overlapping symbols in the available symbol set, wherein the one or more overlapping symbols carry at least one of a SRS resource and a PUCCH resource; or a starting symbol of the one or more overlapping symbols, an UL symbol of a first occurrence in the time domain within the available symbol set, and the allocation length value (Fig. 18b-c, these limitations are directed to an alternative embodiment of claim 7 that was not selected in the above citations. As Takahashi disclosed the starting symbol in each UL slot is determined by a UL symbol of a first occurrence in the time domain within the available symbol set, these limitations are not accorded patentable weight).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, they are rejected for similar reasons as stated above. Takahashi further discloses transmitting DCI and receive DCI data on the determined one or more time domain resources (col. 58, lines 60-62; col. 59, line 66 to col. 60 line 5).
Claims 10-14, and 17-21 are rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph E Avellino whose telephone number is (571)272-3905. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am-3:00pm.
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, James Kramer can be reached at 571-272-6783. 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.
JOSEPH E. AVELLINO
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478