CTNF 18/270,147 CTNF 83046 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priorities and Examiner Remarks This application is a National Stage entry of PCT/CN2021/071592 (International Filing Date: 01/13/2021). Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/16/2026 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 17-19, 21-23, 25-27, and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chatterjee et al. (US 20190149269 A1, hereinafter Chatterjee ), in view of Yi et al. (US 20210360616 A1, hereinafter Yi ) . Regarding claim 17 , Chatterjee teaches a method of communication performed at a terminal device, the method comprising (in general, see fig. 8 and its corresponding paragraphs at least 73-101): receiving from a base station, at least one of tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon, tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationDedicated, or ssb-PositionsInBurst ( Chatterjee , see at least para. 96-99, for example, “TDD-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon IE or TDD-UL-DL-ConfigDedicated IE” as well as “ssb-PositionsInBurst element”); determining a set of slots for a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission scheduled by Downlink Control Information (DCI) format 0_1 or 0_2 ( Chatterjee , see at least para. 96 and 99, for example, the two embodiments for how to send or not send PUSCH, for example, step 825 and step 850, note that “...UE 102 is scheduled by a DCI format 0_1 to transmit a PUSCH over a plurality of slots...”), wherein the set of slots is based on a number of slots and a repetitions ( Chatterjee , see at least para. 96, for one non-limiting example, “…the UE 102 is scheduled by a DCI format 0_1 to transmit a PUSCH over a plurality of slots…”, note that there are multiple PUSCH over multiple slots), wherein [ (i) ] a first slot in which at least one of symbols allocated for the PUSCH transmission overlaps with a downlink symbol indicated by tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon or tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationDedicated, or [ (ii) ] a symbol of an SS/PBCH block provided by ssb-PositionsInBurst is not counted as a slot in the set of slots ( Chatterjee , see at least para. 96 in view of para. 90, for one non-limiting example for condition (i) , “…if the UE 102 is scheduled by a DCI format 0_1 to transmit a PUSCH over a plurality of slots; and if a TDD-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon IE or TDD-UL-DL-ConfigDedicated IE indicates that, for a slot from the second plurality of slots, from a second set of symbols in which the UE 102 is scheduled to transmit the PUSCH in the slot, at least one symbol of the second set of symbols is a downlink symbol: …”, note that “...the UE 102 may determine whether there is a conflict between: assignment of a set of symbols for downlink reception indicated by a DCI format, and assignment of the set of symbols for uplink transmission as configured by the higher layers (including but not limited to RRC signaling). The UE 102 may, if it is determined that there is a conflict, refrain from uplink transmission in at least a portion of the set of symbols...”), and wherein [ (iii) ] a second slot in which no symbol allocated for the PUSCH transmission overlaps with the downlink symbol indicated by the tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon or the tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationDedicated, or [ (iv) ] the symbol of the SS/PBCH block provided by the ssb-PositionsInBurst is counted as a slot in the set of slots ( Chatterjee , see at least para. 94-95, for one non-limiting example for condition (iii) , “…the UE 102 may refrain from reception of a PDSCH. In some embodiments, if the UE 102 is scheduled by a DCI format 1_1 to receive a PDSCH over a plurality of slots; and if a TDD-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon information element (IE) or a TDD-UL-DL-ConfigDedicated IE indicates that, for a slot from the plurality of slots, from a set of symbols in which the UE 102 is scheduled to receive the PDSCH in the slot, at least one symbol of the set of symbols is an uplink symbol: …”, note that “...the UE 102 may determine whether there is a conflict between: assignment of a plurality of symbols for downlink reception of a PDSCH indicated by a DCI, and assignment of the plurality of symbols for uplink transmission. The UE 102 may, if it is determined that there is a conflict, refrain from downlink reception in at least a portion of the plurality of symbols...”); and performing the PUSCH transmission in the set of slots, wherein the PUSCH transmission in the second slot is omitted according to a condition ( Chatterjee , see at least para. 94 and 96, see step 840 and/or step 845 respectively, for example, based on whether conflict occurs, UE 102 transmits PUSCH, and/or receives PDSCH while not transmit PUSCH respectively). Chatterjee differs from the claim, in that, it does not specifically disclose a number of repetitions. Yi , from the similar field of endeavor, teaches a number of repetitions ( Yi , see at least para. 231, “…The time domain resource allocation entry may comprise a repetition number (e.g., numberOfRepetitions). The time domain resource allocation entry may comprise a starting symbol (e.g., startSymbol) and a length addition to the SLIV. A base station may configure a repetition type (e.g., repetition type A, repetition type B) for a PUSCH transmission…”). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Yi into the method of Chatterjee for improving reliability and decreased latency. Regarding claim 18 , Chatterjee in view of Yi teaches the at least one of tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon, tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationDedicated, or ssb-PositionsInBurst is received in a radio resource control message. ( Chatterjee , see at least para. 100, “…the UE 102 may receive a higher-layer configuration using Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling or a DCI format that configures the UE 102 to transmit the SRS, the PUCCH, the PUSCH or the PRACH in the slot…”) Regarding claim 19 , Chatterjee in view of Yi teaches receiving, from the base station, information configuring the number of repetitions. ( Yi , see at least para. 231, “…The base station may configure, for the wireless device, a parameter (e.g., PUSCHRepTypeIndicator-ForDCIFormat0_1) to indicate a repetition type B (e.g., puschRepTypeB), for example, for a PUSCH transmission scheduled by DCI corresponding to a non-fallback DCI format (e.g., DCI format 0_1)…”) Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Yi into the method of Chatterjee for improving reliability and decreased latency. Regarding claim 21 , this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 17. To be more specific, although reciting subject matters slightly different, one skilled in the art would have known claim 21 performs reverse (or corresponding) procedures of claim 17. For example, it would be a base station of claim 21 that performs the reverse (or corresponding) receiving from and transmitting to the terminal device of claim 17. Hence, the examiner applies the same rejection reasoning as set forth in claim 17. Regarding claims 22 and 23 , in view of claim 21 above, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 18 and 19, respectively. Regarding claims 25, 26, and 27 , these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 17, 18, and 19, respectively, except each of these claims is in apparatus claim format. To be more specific, Chatterjee in view of Yi also teaches a same or similar apparatus comprising processor, transceiver, and memory ( Chatterjee , see at least fig. 2), which are well known in the art and commonly used for providing and enabling robust and reliable data communication hardware and software. Regarding claim 29 , Chatterjee in view of Yi teaches the first slot is not comprised in the set of slots and the second slot is comprised in the set of slots. ( Chatterjee , see at least para. 94 and 96, see step 840 and/or step 845 respectively, for example, based on whether conflict occurs, UE 102 transmits PUSCH, and/or receives PDSCH while not transmit PUSCH respectively in their own resources). Regarding claims 30 , in view of claim 21 above, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 29. Regarding claims 31 , this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 29, except this claim is in apparatus claim format . Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 02/12/2026 have been fully considered. Regarding independent claims 17, 21, and 25, since applicant's amendment necessitated new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, previous Office action's rejections are moot. Accordingly, corresponding dependent claims have also been rejected in this Office action. 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 02/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner provides response in following sections . Regarding independent claim 17 , applicant argues that (applicant’s emphasis included, if any): “Applicant respectfully disagrees for at least the following reasons. For example, it is unclear how the Examiner is mapping the alleged conflict determination in paragraphs 94 and 95 of Chatterjee to the claimed " a second slot in which no symbol allocated for the PUSCH transmission overlaps with the downlink symbol indicated by the tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon or the tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationDedicated .” In cited paragraphs [0094] and [0095], Chatterjee discloses the following (emphasis added): [[ para. 94-95 not reproduced here ]] Here, Chatterjee at most discloses PDSCH reception conflicts, not PUSCH transmission slot counting. Specifically, Chatterjee discloses that the UE refrains from reception of a PDSCH when symbols scheduled for PDSCH reception overlap with uplink symbols and when there is a conflict between downlink reception and uplink transmission, the UE refrains from downlink reception. This is fundamentally different from the claimed features, in which, " a second slot in which no symbol allocated for the PUSCH transmission overlaps with the downlink symbol is counted as a slot in the set of slots ." That is, cited paragraphs [0094] and [0095] in Chatterjees relate to conflicts between downlink reception indicated by DCI format 1_1 and uplink transmission configured by TDD configuration. While in claim 17, second slot is counted in a set of slots indicated by DCI format 0_1/0_2 (as uplink slot ), downlink symbol is configured by TDD configuration, and there is no overlap between the second slot and the downlink symbol.” (Remarks, page 9-10) Examiner respectfully disagrees. To be more specific, para. 94-95 of Chatterjee discloses “...TDD-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon information element (IE) or a TDD-UL-DL-ConfigDedicated IE indicates that, for a slot from the plurality of slots, from a set of symbols in which the UE 102 is scheduled to receive the PDSCH in the slot...”. Chatterjee does not appear to disclose the TDD-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon information element (IE) or a TDD-UL-DL-ConfigDedicated IE indicates that, for a slot from the plurality of slots, from a set of symbols in which the UE 102 is scheduled to send PUSCHs in said slots/symbols. Hence, Chatterjee indeed suggests or teaches the features of “...a second slot in which no symbol allocated for the PUSCH transmission overlaps with the downlink symbol indicated by the tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon or the tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationDedicated...” as recited in claim 17. Further, applicant argues that (applicant’s emphasis included, if any): “Furthermore, claim 17 recites, inter alia , "the PUSCH transmission in the second slot is omitted according to a condition", where the second slot is a slot in which " no symbol allocated for the PUSCH transmission overlaps with the downlink symbol indicated by the tdd-UL-DL- ConfigurationCommon or the tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationDedicated.' That is, there is no conflict between second slot and TDD configuration, while the second slot is still omitted according to a condition. Chatterjee does not teach or suggest omitting PUSCH transmission in the second slot as claimed. For example, in cited paragraph [0096], Chatterjee merely discloses refraining from PUSCH transmission when there is an overlap with downlink symbols, which is different from omitting PUSCH transmission in a slot (e.g., the second slot) in which " no symbol allocated for the PUSCH transmission overlaps with the downlink symbol indicated by the tdd-UL-DL- ConfigurationCommon or the tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationDedicated." Yi also do not teach or suggest these features missing in Chatterjee. Therefore, the cited references, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest every feature of claim 17.” (Remarks, page 10-11) Examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated above, Chatterjee does not appear to disclose the TDD-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon information element (IE) or a TDD-UL-DL-ConfigDedicated IE indicates that, for a slot from the plurality of slots, from a set of symbols in which the UE 102 is scheduled to send PUSCHs in said slots/symbols. Hence, Chatterjee indeed suggests or teaches the argued features of “wherein the PUSCH transmission in the second slot is omitted according to a condition...” as recited in claim 17. Regarding independent claims 21 and 25 , the traversal grounds are same or similar as those presented in claim 17 above. Therefore, in view of the response above, examiner also respectfully disagrees and has maintained the rejection as presented. Accordingly, all pending dependent claims of the independent claims 17, 21, and 25 , in view of the response above, the examiner has maintained the rejection as presented and believes all rejections are proper and should be sustained. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEE F LAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7577. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. 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. /YEE F LAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/270,147 Page 2 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/270,147 Page 4 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/270,147 Page 5 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/270,147 Page 6 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/270,147 Page 7 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/270,147 Page 8 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/270,147 Page 9 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/270,147 Page 10 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/270,147 Page 11 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/270,147 Page 12 Art Unit: 2465
Prosecution Insights