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 .
Status of the Claims
Based on the current set of claims (Claims, 06 October 2025), Claims 1-5 are pending.
Based on the current set of claims (Claims, 06 October 2025), Claims 1-5 are amended and the amendments to Claim 1, Claim 2, and Claim 3 are narrowing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the objection of Claims 1-3 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of Claims 1-3 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of Claims 1-5 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 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Said claim recites contingent limitations, such as “in a case that the transmitted random access preamble is in a first group of preambles” and “in a case that the transmitted random access preamble is in a second group of preambles”. Examiner reminds Applicant that "[the] broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met", See MPEP 2111.04 and See Ex Parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2015-007421 (Jan. 31, 2016). Here, the contingent limitations, (i.e. “in a case that the transmitted random access preamble is in a first group of preambles” and “in a case that the transmitted random access preamble is in a second group of preambles”) are not conditions that are required to occur, therefore the corresponding limitations are not required to occur. Given that the limitations are not required to occur, said limitations do not possess patentable weight. Examiner has, in the interest of compact prosecution, treated the limitation. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “in response to the transmitted random access preamble [[is]] being in a first group of preambles” and “in response to the transmitted random access preamble [[is]] being in a second group of preambles” respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 20220345271 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Wu”) in view of KT Corp. (Views on DCI Contents for eMTC, 15 November 2015, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting#83, Anaheim, USA, Tdoc: R1-157374; hereinafter referred to as “KTCorp”; See IDS (IDS, 20 June 2023, Non-Patent Literature Documents, Cite No. 1)).
Regarding Claim 1, Wu discloses a user equipment (UE), comprising:
transmission circuitry (¶126-135 & Fig. 5, Wu discloses a terminal device comprising a network interface 504) configured to transmit, to a base station, a random access preamble (¶26, Wu discloses sending, by the terminal device to the network device, a random access preamble, or MSG1 of the random access procedure. Examiner correlates the terminal device to “a user equipment (UE)”. Examiner correlates a network device to “a base station”);
reception circuitry (¶126-135 & Fig. 5, Wu discloses the terminal device further comprising the network interface 504) configured to receive, from the base station, a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) (¶27 & ¶74, Wu discloses receiving, by the terminal device from the network device, a random access response (RAR) including an uplink (UL) grant over a Physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) where the UL grant is a type of downlink control information (DCI)) with cyclic redundancy check (CRC) scrambled by a Temporary Cell Radio Network Temporary Identifier (TC-RNTI) (¶22 & 27, Wu discloses that the RAR is scrambled with a Temporary Cell Radio Network Temporary Identifier (TC-RNTI)), the DCI format scheduling a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (¶27 & ¶74, Wu discloses that the UL grant is a type of downlink control information (DCI) that schedules a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) transmission); and
control circuitry (¶126-135 & Fig. 5, Wu discloses the terminal device further comprising a processor 501) configured to determine whether to transmit the PUSCH with repetitions based on the transmitted random access preamble (¶57 & Claim 7, Wu discloses determining, by the terminal device, to transmit the PUSCH based upon a transmitted random access preamble by transmitting the preamble on a particular target random access resource and, in turn, the network device will instruct the terminal to transmit the PUSCH with repetitions based upon receiving, from the terminal device, preambles on the target RACH resource), wherein:
in a case that the transmitted random access preamble is in a first group of preambles (¶57 & Claim 7, Wu discloses preambles transmitted on a target RACH resource. Examiner correlates preambles transmitted/received on the target RACH resource as “a first group of preambles”):
the PUSCH is transmitted repeatedly based on the repetition number (¶29 & ¶41-42 & ¶27-28, Wu discloses transmitting, by the terminal device to the network device, a PUSCH (or MSG3 transmission) based upon a maximum number of repetitions indicated in the UL grant of the RAR), and
in a case that the transmitted random access preamble is in a second group of preambles (¶57 & Claim 7, Wu discloses preambles not transmitted on a target RACH resource. Examiner correlates preambles not transmitted on the target RACH resources as “a second group of preambles”), the PUSCH is transmitted once and without repetition (¶57 & Claim 7 & Claim 1, Wu discloses that the PUSCH is only transmitted once when the network device does not detect the preamble on the target RACH resource).
However, Wu does not disclose [the PDCCH} with a downlink control information (DCI) format, and a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) field in the DCI format is reduced by one or more bits, the one or more bits of the MCS field is used to indicate a repetition number for transmitting the PUSCH.
KTCorp, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches [the PDCCH} with a downlink control information (DCI) format (Pg. 1, 1. Introduction & Table 1, KTCorp discloses the DCI with a DCI Format M0A or DCI Format M0B) and a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) field (Pg. 1, 1. Introduction & Table 1, KTCorp discloses a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) field) in the DCI format (Pg. 1, 1. Introduction & Table 1, KTCorp discloses that the PUSCH can be scheduled with repetition using either DCI Format M0A or DCI Format M0B) is reduced by one or more bits (Pg. 1, 1. Introduction & Table 1, KTCorp discloses the MCS field being reduced from 5 bits by one or more bits), the one or more bits of the MCS field is used to indicate a repetition number for transmitting the PUSCH (Pg. 1, 1. Introduction & Table 1, KTCorp discloses that the one or more bits, which reduced the MCS field, is repurposed to indicate a repetition number for the PUSCH).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu by requiring that [the PDCCH} with a downlink control information (DCI) format, and a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) field in the DCI format is reduced by one or more bits, the one or more bits of the MCS field is used to indicate a repetition number for transmitting the PUSCH as taught by KTCorp because scheduling PUSCH with repetition is improved by reducing the MCS field of the DCI by one or more bits and using said one or more bits to indicate the repetition number of the PUSCH (KTCorp, Pg. 1, 1. Introduction).
Regarding Claim 2, Wu discloses a base station, comprising:
reception circuitry (¶136-144 & Fig. 6, Wu discloses a network device comprising a transceiver) configured to receive, from a user equipment (UE), a random access preamble (¶26, Wu discloses receiving, by the network device from a terminal device, a random access preamble, or MSG1 of the random access procedure. Examiner correlates the terminal device to “a user equipment (UE)”. Examiner correlates the network device to “a base station”); and
transmission circuitry (¶136-144 & Fig. 6, Wu discloses the network device comprising the transceiver) configured to transmit, to the UE, a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) (¶27 & ¶74, Wu discloses transmitting, by the network device to the terminal device, a random access response (RAR) including an uplink (UL) grant over a Physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) where the UL grant is a form of downlink control information (DCI). Examiner correlates the UL grant to “a downlink control information (DCI) format) with cyclic redundancy check (CRC) scrambled by a Temporary Cell Radio Network Temporary Identifier (TC-RNTI) (¶22 & 27, Wu discloses that the RAR is scrambled with a Temporary Cell Radio Network Temporary Identifier (TC-RNTI)), wherein:
the reception circuitry (¶136-144 & Fig. 6, Wu discloses the network device comprising the transceiver) is further configured to determine whether to receive, from the UE, the PUSCH with repetitions based on the received random access preamble (¶57 & Claim 7, Wu discloses determining, by the network device, to instruct the terminal to transmit the PUSCH with repetitions based upon receiving, from the terminal device, preambles on the target RACH resource),
in a case that the received random access preamble is in a first group of preambles (¶57 & Claim 7, Wu discloses preambles transmitted on a target RACH resource. Examiner correlates preambles transmitted/received on the target RACH resource as “a first group of preambles”):
the PUSCH is received repeatedly based on the repetition number (¶29 & ¶41-42 & ¶27-28, Wu discloses transmitting, by the terminal device to the network device, a PUSCH (or MSG3 transmission) based upon a maximum number of repetitions indicated in the UL grant of the RAR), and
in a case that the received random access preamble is in a second group of preambles (¶57 & Claim 7, Wu discloses preambles not transmitted on a target RACH resource. Examiner correlates preambles not transmitted on the target RACH resources as “a second group of preambles”),
the PUSCH is received once and without repetition (¶29 & ¶57 & Claim 7 & Claim 1, Wu discloses that the PUSCH is only transmitted once when the network device does not detect the preamble on the target RACH resource).
However, Wu does not disclose the DCI format scheduling a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) , [the PDCCH] with a downlink control information (DCI) format and a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) field in the DCI format is reduced by one or more bits, the one or more bits of the MCS field is used to indicate a repetition number for transmitting the PUSCH.
KTCorp, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the DCI format scheduling a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (Pg. 1, 1. Introduction & Table 1, KTCorp discloses that either the DCI Format M0A or the DCI Format M0B schedules the PUSCH), [the PDCCH] with a downlink control information (DCI) format (Pg. 1, 1. Introduction & Table 1, KTCorp discloses the DCI with a DCI Format M0A or DCI Format M0B), and a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) field in the DCI format is reduced by one or more bits (Pg. 1, 1. Introduction & Table 1, KTCorp discloses the MCS field being reduced from 5 bits by one or more bits), the one or more bits of the MCS field is used to indicate a repetition number for transmitting the PUSCH (Pg. 1, 1. Introduction & Table 1, KTCorp discloses that the one or more bits, which reduced the MCS field, is repurposed to indicate a repetition number for the PUSCH).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu by requiring that the DCI format scheduling a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) , [the PDCCH] with a downlink control information (DCI) format and a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) field in the DCI format is reduced by one or more bits, the one or more bits of the MCS field is used to indicate a repetition number for transmitting the PUSCH as taught by KTCorp because scheduling PUSCH with repetition is improved by reducing the MCS field of the DCI by one or more bits and using said one or more bits to indicate the repetition number of the PUSCH (KTCorp, Pg. 1, 1. Introduction).
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 4, Wu in view of KTCorp discloses the UE according to claim 1.
KTCorp, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, further teaches codepoints of the one or more bits of the MCS field correspond to respective predefined repetition numbers (Pg. 1, 1. Introduction & Table 1, KTCorp discloses a set of values for repetition indicated by values of the one or more bits that were repurposed from the MCS field) or repetition numbers indicated by System Information Block 1 (SIB1) (Examiner notes that the use of “or” and “and/or” has a broadest reasonable interpretation of any element in the list that follows or any of those elements taken together. See Ex Parte Gross, Appeal 2011-004811, Application No. 11/565,411. Thus, Examiner has not treated all limitations separated by “and/or” and “or”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu in view of KTCorp by requiring that codepoints of the one or more bits of the MCS field correspond to respective predefined repetition numbers as taught by KTCorp because scheduling PUSCH with repetition is improved by reducing the MCS field of the DCI by one or more bits and using said one or more bits to indicate the repetition number of the PUSCH (KTCorp, Pg. 1, 1. Introduction).
Regarding Claim 5, Papasakellariou in view of KTCorp discloses the base station according to claim 2.
KTCorp, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, further teaches codepoints of the one or more bits of the MCS field correspond to respective predefined repetition numbers (Pg. 1, 1. Introduction & Table 1, KTCorp discloses a set of values for repetition indicated by values of the one or more bits that were repurposed from the MCS field) or repetition numbers indicated by System Information Block 1 (SIB1) (Examiner notes that the use of “or” and “and/or” has a broadest reasonable interpretation of any element in the list that follows or any of those elements taken together. See Ex Parte Gross, Appeal 2011-004811, Application No. 11/565,411. Thus, Examiner has not treated all limitations separated by “and/or” and “or”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Papasakellariou in view of KTCorp by requiring that codepoints of the one or more bits of the MCS field correspond to respective predefined repetition numbers as taught by KTCorp because scheduling PUSCH with repetition is improved by reducing the MCS field of the DCI by one or more bits and using said one or more bits to indicate the repetition number of the PUSCH (KTCorp, Pg. 1, 1. Introduction).
Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 ERIC NOWLIN whose telephone number is (313)446-6544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00PM-10:00PM.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/ERIC NOWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2474