DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 20 January 2026, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 13-16, 19, 20, 24, 27, 28, 31 and 32 are amended.
Claims 33-36 are newly added.
Claims 10, 11, 22, 23, 25, 26, 29 and 30 are cancelled.
Claims 1-9, 12-21, 24, 27, 28 and 31-36 are currently pending.
The outstanding objection to Claims 1-3, 5, 13-15, 28, 31, and 32 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to said claims.
The outstanding rejection of Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 13-16, 19, 20, 24, 27, 28, 31 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to Claims 1, 13, 27 and 31.
Response to Arguments
The Office notes that the rejection of Claims 1-9, 12-21, 24, 27, 28, 31 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained for the reasons set forth below, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment. Applicant has not set forth arguments specific to the issues previously identified in these claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 13, 27 and 31 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “the WD, the WD” and should be revised to “the WD”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The Office notes that the independent claims recite (emphasis added) “overlapping the multi-slot PUSCH with at least one of another PUSCH and a physical uplink control channel, PUCCH”. This is considered to be an alternative limitation, which would be met by overlap with one of PUSCH or a PUCCH. Limitations in the dependent claims that further limit the non-selected options above (i.e., the PUCCH if the PUSCH is selected) would not be considered to be part of the broadest reasonable interpretation.
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 1-9, 12-21, 24, 27, 28 and 31-36 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.
Independent claims 1, 13, 27 and 31 recite (emphasis added) “configuring a multi-slot physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) for multi-slot transport block (TB)”. Subsequently, the claims recite “the multi-slot TB”. However, the claim language is phrased such that “for multi-slot transport block (TB)” appears to be an intended use of the PUSCH, rather than establishing any quantity of multi-slot TBs. Therefore, the claim does not clearly refer back to a single multi-slot TB, possibly among a plurality of multi-slot TBs, in order to establish clear antecedent basis for “the multi-slot transport block (TB)”. As such, these claims are found to be indefinite. Claims 2-9, 12, 14-21, 24, 28 and 32-36 fail to resolve the deficiencies described above and are rejected by virtue of dependency on the independent claims.
Further regarding Claims 4 and 16, it is unclear whether claim language “multi-slot PUSCH,” “PUCCH”, and “PUSCH” in each of the overlap cases refers to the same “multi-slot PUSCH,” “PUCCH”, and “PUSCH” in the independent claims.
Further regarding Claim 7, claim language “the omitting” lacks antecedent basis. It is noted that Claim 7 depends on Claim 5, which solely recites postponing and not omitting one-slot PUSCH or multi-slot transport block.
Further regarding Claims 9 and 21, claim language “the TB” lacks antecedent basis. For examination purposes, it is assumed that this refers to a transport block (TB) separate from the multi-slot transport block in the independent claims. Further, Claims 8 and 20, on which Claims 9 and 21 respectively depend, solely refer to “the multi-slot PUSCH or the PUCCH repetition” being omitted. Therefore, noting that there is no indication of a TB being omitted in Claims 8 and 20, it is not clear what “a transmission in all slots of the TB” refers to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-9, 13-21, 27, 28, 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0274639), hereinafter Yang, in view of Bhamri et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2023/0284190), hereinafter Bhamri190, and Li et al (WIPO Publication 2018/229326), hereinafter Li.
Regarding Claim 27, Yang discloses a wireless device (WD) (Figure 2, UE 120) configured to communicate with a network node (Figure 2, base station 110), the WD, the WD comprising one or both of a radio interface and processing circuitry (Figure 2, UE 120 comprises antennas 252a-252r and controller/processor 280; refer to paragraph 0042) to:
configure a multi-slot physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) by overlapping the multi-slot PUSCH with at least one of another PUSCH and a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) (Figure 5A and paragraph 0066 – the UE determines that a multi-slot PUSCH collides (i.e., overlaps) with PUCCH (either as a single slot or multi-slot collision); and
applying repetition (paragraph 0063 and Figure 5A – the UE is configured to transmit the A-CSI report with repetition on the multi-slot PUSCH).
However, Yang does not disclose configuring a multi-slot PUSCH for multi-slot transport block (TB) or repetition for the multi-slot TB. In an analogous art, Bhamri190 discloses this. Specifically, Bhamri190 discloses repetitions of transport blocks with multi-slot scheduling for PUSCH (see Figure 10 and paragraphs 0089-0090). Additionally, Bhamri190 discloses transmitting a single uplink transport block across more than one slot (paragraph 0074). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yang and Bhamri190. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce PDCCH monitoring by the UE (refer to paragraph 0072 of Bhamri190).
However, the aforementioned references do not disclose if the TB uses only one redundancy version, apply RV cycling repetition. In an analogous art, Li discloses this. Specifically, Li discloses RV cycling utilizing a single RV sequence (page 11, lines 17-20). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yang / Bhamri190 and Li. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase reliability of resource assignment and grant messages in 5G NR (see page 2, lines 7-9 of Li).
Claim 1 is a method claim comprising the same steps performed by the network device of Claim 27. Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above for Claim 27.
Regarding Claim 31, Yang discloses a network node (Figure 2 - base station 110) configured to communicate with a wireless device (WD) (Figure 2 - UE 120) the network node comprising one or both of a radio interface and processing circuitry (Figure 2 – base station 110 comprises antennas 234a-234t and controller/processor 240) to:
configure the WD to transmit on a multi-slot physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) by overlapping the multi-slot PUSCH with at least one of another PUSCH and a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) (Figure 5A and paragraph 0066 – the UE determines that a multi-slot PUSCH collides (i.e., overlaps) with PUCCH (either as a single slot or multi-slot collision); and
a repetition being used (paragraph 0063 and Figure 5A – the UE is configured to transmit the A-CSI report with repetition on the multi-slot PUSCH).
However, Yang does not disclose configuring a multi-slot PUSCH for multi-slot transport block (TB) or repetition for the multi-slot TB. In an analogous art, Bhamri190 discloses this. Specifically, Bhamri190 discloses repetitions of transport blocks with multi-slot scheduling for PUSCH (see Figure 10 and paragraphs 0089-0090). Additionally, Bhamri190 discloses transmitting a single uplink transport block across more than one slot (paragraph 0074). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yang and Bhamri190. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce PDCCH monitoring by the UE (refer to paragraph 0072 of Bhamri190).
However, the aforementioned references do not disclose if the TB uses only one redundancy version, apply RV cycling repetition. In an analogous art, Li discloses this. Specifically, Li discloses RV cycling utilizing a single RV sequence (page 11, lines 17-20). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yang / Bhamri and Li. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase reliability of resource assignment and grant messages in 5G NR (see page 2, lines 7-9 of Li).
Claim 13 is a method claim comprising the same steps performed by the network device of Claim 31. Therefore, Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above for Claim 31.
Regarding Claims 2, 14, 28, and 32, the combination of Yang, Bhamri190 and Li discloses wherein the multi-slot PUSCH relates to a single TB transmission (Bhamri190 at paragraph 0074). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Yang and Bhamri190. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce PDCCH monitoring by the UE (refer to paragraph 0072 of Bhamri190).
Regarding Claims 3 and 15, the combination of Yang, Bhamri190 and Li discloses a transport block size (TBS) of the single TB is determined for a TB across multiple slots (Bhamri190 at paragraph 0107 and 0108). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Yang and Bhamri190. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce PDCCH monitoring by the UE (refer to paragraph 0072 of Bhamri190).
Regarding Claims 4 and 16, Yang further discloses the configuring is for a multi-slot PUSCH and a PUCCH in one slot (see Figure 5A for single-slot collision), therefore meeting the claimed alternative limitation.
Regarding Claims 5 and 17, Yang further discloses wherein, in at least one of the overlap cases, one-slot PUSCH or multi-slot TB is at least partially postponed (paragraph 0078 – the UE may drop (or refrain from transmitting) the A-CSI report communication in each overlapping slot).
Regarding Claims 6 and 18, Yang further discloses wherein, in at least one of the overlap cases, one-slot PUSCH or multi-slot PUSCH is at least partially omitted (paragraph 0078 – the UE may drop (or refrain from transmitting) the A-CSI report communication in each overlapping slot).
Regarding Claims 7 and 19, Yang discloses wherein one (or one or both) of the omitting and postponing is based at least in part on a priority of a channel (paragraphs 0074-0075 and 0079 – the UE uses a priority hierarchy associated with uplink transmissions over the channel in order to determine whether to drop or refrain from transmitting).
Regarding Claims 8 and 20, Yang further discloses wherein the multi-slot PUSCH overlaps with a PUCCH repetition, the multi-slot PUSCH or the PUCCH repetition is omitted or postponed, if the PUCCH repetition does not map on the multi-slot PUSCH (Figure 5A and paragraphs 0078-0079 – the multi-slot PUSCH collides with a second communication over PUCCH (i.e., not mapped to multi-slot PUSCH), configured with repetition).
Regarding Claims 9 and 21, Yang further discloses wherein a transmission in all slots of the TB or multi-slot PUSCH is omitted or only a transmission in the one or more overlapping slots of multiple slots of the TB or multi-slot PUSCH is omitted (paragraph 0078 – the UE may drop (or refrain from transmitting) the A-CSI report communication in each overlapping slot).
Claims 12 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Bhamri190 and Li, as applied to Claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Bhamri et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20230232380), hereinafter Bhamri380. The combination of Yang, Bhamri190 and Li renders obvious the features of Claims 1 and 13 as described above. Further, Yang discloses the multi-slot TB or the multi-slot PUSCH is repeated (Figure 5A, the multi-slot PUSCH is configured with repetition). However, the aforementioned references do not disclose Type-A multi-slot TB and PUSCH repetition Type A are configured simultaneously. In an analogous art, Bhamri380 discloses this. Specifically, Bhamri380 discloses configuring Type-A multi-slot TB (paragraph 0117) and Type-B PUSCH repetition (paragraph 0113). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yang / Bhamri190 / Li with Bhamri380. One would have been motivated to do so in order to support coverage enhancement (paragraph 0116 of Bhamri380).
Claims 33-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Bhamri190 and Li, as applied to Claims 1, 13, 27 and 31 above, and further in view of Dai et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2024/0032024), hereinafter Dai. The combination of Yang, Bhamri190 and Li renders obvious the features of Claims 1, 13, 27 and 31 as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose wherein four repetitions of the multi-slot TB use redundancy versions RV0, RV2, RV1, and RV3, respectively. In an analogous art, Dai discloses this. Specifically, Dai discloses the encoded bits of a transmission block (TB) of a multiple slot PUSCH may differ such that a redundancy value of each slot is different, where an example RV over 4 slots may include RV0, RV2, RV3, and RV1 (paragraph 0064). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yang / Bhamri190 / Li with Dai. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase a signal to noise ratio for transmission reliability (see paragraph 0063 of Dai).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm 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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights