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 22 December 2025, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1-28 are canceled.
Claims 30 and 43 are amended.
Claims 29-48 are currently pending.
The outstanding rejection of Claims 30 and 43 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to said claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 December 2025 regarding the rejection of Claims 29, 41 and 42 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. From the arguments filed 22 December 2025, the Office submits that Applicant has both misconstrued the scope of the claim and argued features that do not appear in the claim language.
Regarding the scope of the claim language, Applicant states on page 13 that “independent claim 29 requires (1) wherein the first time domain range is at least one of a first time window or 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 and a first end moment of the first time window is the first time domain position, or (2) 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, and 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.” However, the Office submits that the presence of the word “or” in the claim limits the broadest reasonable interpretation to either include limitation (1) above or limitation (2) above, but not both. This position is further supported by the earlier recitation in the claim language that (emphasis added by the Office) “the first time domain range is at least one of a first time window or a second time window.” As the Office action clearly indicates in the independent claim rejections, the “second window” is claimed in the alternative to the “first window” and is therefore not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation. The Office action also clearly indicated that claim language further related to the second time window is claimed in the alternative to the first time window and is therefore not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation.
It then follows that Applicant’s statement (see page 13 of the response) that “Behravan does not disclose conditionally combining the SR based on the presence of another uplink channel within a flexibly defined time domain range relative to the SR position where the window can extend backward or forward from that position and is explicitly tied to MAC-to-PHY triggering events or configurable lengths” is rooted in an interpretation that requires both the first time window and the second time window. However, this is not commensurate with the scope of the claim, which only recites “at least one of a first time window or a second time window.” Applicant further states that “The start of the time window is the moment when a second scheduling request of a MAC layer of the terminal device is received by a PHY layer of the terminal device. The end moment is the scheduled transmission time of the dedicated SR PUCCH. Behravan fails to disclose any time window anchored to MAC-to-PHY SR triggering.” However, this is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. While the claim indicates “a first start moment of the first time window is triggered by receiving a second scheduling request”, this is phrased as a cause and effect, and there is no further detail in the claim language so as to require the immediacy with which the window begins. Further, while the claim indicates “the first time domain range is related to a first time domain position of a…(PUCCH) carrying the first scheduling request”, this “relation” is not further detailed to the specificity stated by applicant (the alleged “scheduled transmission time of the SR PUCCH”). Applicant further states “Behravan fails to disclose any configurable forward or backward fixed-length time window relative to the SR PUCCH position for determining whether to permits SR combination when channels are proximate but non-overlapping.” The Office notes that these features are not found in the claim language. Lastly, Applicant states “Because Behravan lacks any disclosure of a "time domain range" defined as the claimed first or second time windows, Behravan also fails to disclose the conditional combining step limited to channels existing in that specific range.” The Office again notes that the “second time window” is not required by the claim language, as it is claimed in the alternative to the “first time window”.
For the reasons detailed above, the rejection of Claims 29, 41 and 42 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) is maintained.
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 29-35, 37, 38 and 41-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Behravan et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20220256562), hereinafter Behravan.
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)),
wherein the first time domain range is at least one of a first time window (Figures 17-18, the SR is transmitted within a slot window) or a second time window (note: the “second window” is claimed in the alternative to the “first window” and is therefore not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation),
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 and a first end moment of the first time window is the first time domain position (paragraph 0150 – the SR is triggered by MAC; Figures 17-18 the SR is transmitted within a slot interval); 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 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 (note: this limitation is claimed in the alternative to the “first time window” and is therefore not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation).
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),
wherein the time domain range is at least one of a first time window or a second time window (Figures 17-18, the SR is transmitted within a slot window) or a second time window (note: the “second window” is claimed in the alternative to the “first window” and is therefore not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation),
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 and an end moment of the first time window is a start position of the time domain position (paragraph 0150 – the SR is triggered by MAC; Figures 17-18 the SR is transmitted within a slot interval); or the end moment is the start 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
wherein a second start moment of the second time window is an end position of the time domain position and a time domain length of the second time window is a second time domain length (note: this limitation is claimed in the alternative to the “first time window” and is therefore not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation).
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).
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 36, 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behravan in view of Rastegardoost et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20210105812), hereinafter Rastegardoost.
Regarding Claim 36, Behravan 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, Behravan does 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 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, Behravan discloses the limitations of Claim 29, as described above. However, Behravan does 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 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, Behravan discloses the limitations of Claim 29, as described above. Behravan further discloses the first PUCCH (paragraph 0175 – a configured PUCCH format). However, Behravan does 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 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Islam et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0228248)k discloses transmit-side puncturing of PUSCH REs for SR transmission (paragraph 0146).
El Hamss et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0078768) discloses handling SR collisions and PUSCH collisions (paragraph 0197).
Wu et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2021/0051509) discloses multiplexing CSI reporting transmission and an SR in the PUSCH (paragraph 0084).
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 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