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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6 April 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 6 April 2026, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1-28 are canceled.
Claims 29, 39, 41 and 42 are amended.
Claims 29-48 are currently pending.
The outstanding rejections of Claims 29-35, 37, 38 and 41-48 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and Claims 36, 39 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to Claims 29, 41 and 42. withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to said claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 29, 41 and 42 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.
Regarding the motivation utilized to combine Rastegardoost with Behravan in the rejection of Claim 36, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Rastegardoost specifically describes utilizing different PUCCH formats according to UCI size (at paragraph 0198 as cited in the rejection). Utilizing these different formats can allow the conservation of signaling resources, since some formats utilize less resources than others. Therefore, the reference itself and knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art provides a motivation to combine Rastegardoost with Behravan (as modified by Gao in the updated rejection herein).
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 29-35, 37, 38 and 41-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behravan et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20220256562), hereinafter Behravan, in view of Gao et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0150939), hereinafter Gao.
Regarding Claim 42, Behravan discloses a terminal device (Figure 3, wireless device 22) comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions (Figure 3, memory 88); and
one or more processors coupled to the memory (Figure 3, processor 86) and configured to execute the instructions to cause the terminal device (paragraphs 0112-0114 – the memory stores instructions executed by the processor) to:
combine, when a first uplink channel exists in a first time domain range, a first scheduling request with second information carried in the first uplink channel to obtain first information (Figures 17 and 18, paragraphs 0150-0153 – an SR is multiplexed (i.e., combined) with PUSCH),
wherein the first time domain range is related to a first time domain position of a first physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) carrying the first scheduling request (paragraph 0150 – puncturing the PUSCH to carry the scheduling request is intended to resolve a time overlap with the PUCCH), and
wherein the first uplink channel is any one of a second PUCCH carrying a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback, a third PUCCH carrying a channel state information (CSI) report, or a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (Figures 17 and 18, paragraphs 0150-0153 – the SR is carried within a punctured PUSCH; note: limitations “a second PUCCH carrying a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback” and “a third PUCCH carrying a channel state information (CSI) report” are claimed in the alternative to the PUSCH and are therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation); and
transmit the first information to a network device (paragraphs 0156-0157 – the transmission is intended for network node 16 (as displayed in Figure 3)).
However, Behravan does not disclose wherein the first time domain range comprises both a first time window and a second time window, wherein a first start moment of the first time window is triggered by receiving a second scheduling request of a media access control (MAC) layer of the terminal device by a physical (PHY) layer of the terminal device, wherein a first end moment of the first time window is the first time domain position, or the first end moment is the first time domain position and a time domain length of the first time window is a first time domain length (note: this limitation is claimed in the alternative to the preceding limitation and is therefore not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation), and further wherein a second start moment of the second time window is the first time domain position and a time domain length of the second time window is a second time domain length, wherein the first time window extends backward from the first time domain position to the first start moment, and the second time window extends forward from the first time domain position by the second time domain length. In an analogous art, Gao discloses this. Specifically, Gao discloses receiving and parsing MAC signaling to trigger SR transmission (paragraph 0182) according to a period between the SR trigger and the SR transmission (i.e., first time window) and a period after the SR transmission until the end of a time slot (i.e., second window) (refer to Figure 4 for depiction of the time periods before and after the SR PUCCH transmission). Paragraphs 0184-0186 and 0189-091 further describe examples of when to transmit the SR based on a period of time elapsed after the SR trigger (and detection of PUSCH overlap) and before the end of a proceeding time slot. 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 Behravan and Gao. One would have been motivated to do so in order to fully utilize transmission resources (i.e., ensuring that PUSCH can still be transmitted in the event of overlap with a triggered SR) (refer to paragraph 0004 of Gao).
Claim 29 is directed to a method comprising the same steps as performed by the terminal device of Claim 42. Therefore, Claim 29 is rejected for the same reasoning as presented above.
Regarding Claim 41, Behravan discloses a scheduling request transmission method implemented by a network device, wherein the scheduling request transmission method comprises:
receiving, when a first uplink channel exists in a time domain range, first information from a terminal device, wherein the first information is based on a combination of a first scheduling request and second information carried by the first uplink channel (Figures 17 and 18, paragraphs 0150-0153 – an SR is multiplexed (i.e., combined) with PUSCH); paragraphs 0156-0157 – the transmission is intended for network node 16 (as displayed in Figure 3)),
wherein the time domain range is related to a time domain position of a first physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) carrying the first scheduling request (paragraph 0150 – puncturing the PUSCH to carry the scheduling request is intended to resolve a time overlap with the PUCCH), and
wherein the first uplink channel is any one of a second PUCCH carrying a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback, a third PUCCH carrying a channel state information (CSI) report, or a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (Figures 17 and 18, paragraphs 0150-0153 – the SR is carried within a punctured PUSCH; note: limitations “a second PUCCH carrying a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback” and “a third PUCCH carrying a channel state information (CSI) report” are claimed in the alternative to the PUSCH and are therefore not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
However, Behravan does not disclose wherein the time domain range comprises both a first time window and a second time window, wherein a first start moment of the first time window is triggered by receiving a second scheduling request of a media access control (MAC) layer of the terminal device by a physical (PHY) layer of the terminal device, wherein a first end moment of the first time window is a start position of the time domain position of the first PUCCH; or the first end moment is the start position of the time domain position of the first PUCCH and a time domain length of the first time window is a first time domain length (note: this limitation is claimed in the alternative to the preceding limitation and is therefore not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation), and further wherein a second start moment of the second time window is an end position of the time domain position of the first PUCCH and a time domain length of the second time window is a second time domain length, wherein the first time window extends backward from the start position of the time domain position of the first PUCCH to the first start moment, and the second time window extends forward from the end position of the time domain position of the first PUCCH by the second time domain length. In an analogous art, Gao discloses this. Specifically, Gao discloses receiving and parsing MAC signaling to trigger SR transmission (paragraph 0182) according to a period between the SR trigger and the SR transmission (i.e., first time window) and a period after the SR transmission until the end of a time slot (i.e., second window) (refer to Figure 4 for depiction of the time periods before and after the SR PUCCH transmission). Paragraphs 0184-0186 and 0189-091 further describe examples of when to transmit the SR based on a period of time elapsed after the SR trigger (and detection of PUSCH overlap) and before the end of a proceeding time slot. 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 Behravan and Gao. One would have been motivated to do so in order to fully utilize transmission resources (i.e., ensuring that PUSCH can still be transmitted in the event of overlap with a triggered SR) (refer to paragraph 0004 of Gao).
Regarding Claims 30 and 43, Behravan discloses the first time domain range comprises a plurality of uplink channels (paragraph 0136 – resources are configured for a scheduling request and at least one PUSCH), and wherein the first uplink channel is: a first uplink channel with an earliest time domain position among the plurality of uplink channels (Figure 18 and paragraphs 0150-0154 – the SR is punctured in PUSCH transmission in the earliest slot intervals).
Regarding Claims 31 and 44, Behravan discloses first uplink channel is located in a slot comprising a scheduling request occasion (Figures 17-18 – the PUSCH in a slot interval is punctured by an SR occasion).
Regarding Claims 32 and 45, Behravan discloses a format of the first PUCCH is a format 0 or a format 1 (paragraph 0175 – a configured PUCCH format is format 0),
wherein the first uplink channel is the second PUCCH, wherein a format of the second PUCCH is a format 0, and wherein the method further comprises: concatenating the first scheduling request and the HARQ feedback to obtain the first information; mapping the first information to a cyclic shift value; and further transmitting the first information to the network device based on the cyclic shift value (note: as the second PUCCH carrying HARQ feedback is part of a non-selected option claimed in the alternative in parent claims 29 and 42, the limitations in this clause are not part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding Claims 33 and 46, Behravan discloses a format of the first PUCCH is a format 0 or a format 1 (paragraph 0175 – a configured PUCCH format is format 0),
wherein the first uplink channel is the second PUCCH, wherein a format of the second PUCCH is a format 2, a format 3, or a format 4, and wherein the method further comprises: concatenating the first scheduling request and the HARQ feedback to obtain the first information; and further transmitting the first information to the network device through the first uplink channel (note: as the second PUCCH carrying HARQ feedback is part of a non-selected option claimed in the alternative in parent claims 29 and 42, the limitations in this clause are not part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding Claims 34 and 47, Behravan discloses a format of the first PUCCH is a format 0 or a format 1 (paragraph 0175 – a configured PUCCH format is format 0),
wherein the first uplink channel is the third PUCCH, wherein a format of the third PUCCH is a format 2, a format 3, or a format 4, and wherein the method further comprises: concatenating the first scheduling request and the CSI report to obtain the first information; and further transmitting the first information to the network device through the first uplink channel (note: as the third PUCCH carrying a CSI report is part of a non-selected option claimed in the alternative in parent claims 29 and 42, the limitations in this clause are not part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding Claims 35 and 48, Behravan discloses a format of the first PUCCH is a format 0 (paragraph 0175 – a configured PUCCH format is format 0),
wherein the first uplink channel is the second PUCCH, wherein a format of the second PUCCH is a format 1, and wherein the method further comprises: concatenating the first scheduling request and the HARQ feedback to obtain the first information; mapping the first information to a cyclic shift value; and further transmitting the first information to the network device based on the cyclic shift value (note: as the second PUCCH carrying HARQ feedback is part of a non-selected option claimed in the alternative in parent claims 29 and 42, the limitations in this clause are not part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding Claim 37, Behravan discloses a format of the first PUCCH is a format 0 or a format 1 (paragraph 0175 – a configured PUCCH format is format 0), wherein the first uplink channel is the PUSCH (Figures 17-18 – the uplink channel is a PUSCH), and wherein the method further comprises concatenating the first scheduling request and information comprised in the PUSCH to obtain the first information (Figures 17 and 18, paragraphs 0150-0153 – an SR is multiplexed (i.e., concatenated) with PUSCH).
Regarding Claim 38, Behravan discloses a format of the first PUCCH is a format 0 or a format 1 (paragraph 0175 – a configured PUCCH format is format 0), wherein the first uplink channel is the PUSCH (Figures 17-18 – the uplink channel is a PUSCH), and wherein the method further comprises: puncturing the PUSCH to obtain a punctured position (Figures 17-18 – the PUSCH is punctured with a scheduling request); and mapping the first scheduling request to the punctured position to obtain the first information (Figures 17 and 18, paragraphs 0150-0153 – an SR is multiplexed (i.e., concatenated) with the punctured PUSCH).
Claims 36, 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behravan in view of Gao, as applied to Claim 29 above, and further in view of Rastegardoost et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20210105812), hereinafter Rastegardoost.
Regarding Claim 36, the combination of Behravan and Gao discloses the limitations of Claim 29, as described above. Behravan further discloses transmitting, when a resource of the first PUCCH exists at a second time domain position of the first uplink channel, the first information to the network device in a channel selection manner (paragraphs 0150-0156 – the PUSCH can be transmitted on a UL-SCH on a configured grant). With regards to limitation “wherein a format of the second PUCCH is the format 1”, the second PUCCH is part of a non-selected option claimed in the alternative in parent claim 29 and therefore is not part of the broadest reasonable interpretation). However, the aforementioned references do not disclose a format of the first PUCCH is a format 1. In an analogous art, Rastegardoost discloses this. Specifically, Rastegardoost discloses a UE using PUCCH format 1 for uplink control signaling (paragraphs 0197-0198). 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 Behravan / Gao and Rastegardoost. One would have been motivated to do so in order to conserve signaling resources (i.e., a PUCCH format 1 uses less resources than other PUCCH formats) (see Rastegardoost paragraph 0198).
Regarding Claim 39, the combination of Behravan and Gao discloses the limitations of Claim 29, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose before combining, the first scheduling request with the second information, the method further comprises: receiving a reference signal from the network device; determining, based on the reference signal, a reference signal received power (RSRP); and determining that the RSRP transmitted to the network device after receiving the reference signal is greater than an RSRP threshold. In an analogous art, Rastegardoost discloses this. Specifically, Rastegardoost discloses a UE may measure an RSRP of one or more reference signals (e.g., SSBs and/or CSI-RSs) and determine at least one reference signal having an RSRP above an RSRP threshold (e.g., rsrp-ThresholdSSB and/or rsrp-ThresholdCSI-RS) (paragraph 0173). 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 Behravan / Gao and Rastegardoost. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for the UE to select a preamble for communication with the base station (see paragraphs 0174-0175 of Rastegardoost).
Regarding Claim 40, the combination of Behravan and Gao discloses the limitations of Claim 29, as described above. Behravan further discloses the first PUCCH (paragraph 0175 – a configured PUCCH format). However, the aforementioned references do not disclose wherein transmitting the first information comprises transmitting the first information to the network device using a first transmit power, and wherein the first transmit power is either greater than a first original transmit power of the first uplink channel or is based on the first original transmit power and a second original transmit power. In an analogous art, Rastegardoost discloses this. Specifically, Rastegardoost discloses a UE may perform a preamble retransmission if no response is received following a preamble transmission, where the UE may increase an uplink transmit power for the preamble retransmission (paragraph 0175). 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 Behravan / Gao and Rastegardoost. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for the UE to select a preamble for communication with the base station (see paragraphs 0174-0175 of Rastegardoost).
Conclusion
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