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 .
Priorities and Examiner Remarks
This application is a National Stage entry of PCT/CN2021/071592 (International Filing Date: 01/13/2021).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 17-19, 21-23, 25-27, 32-34, 36-38, and 40-42 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 a downlink control information (DCI) (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 is not counted in the set of slots in a case where at least one of symbols allocated for the PUSCH transmission in the first slot overlaps with a downlink symbol indicated by tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon or tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationDedicated (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: the UE 102 may refrain from transmission of the PUSCH in the slot…”, note that para. 90 discloses 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...”),
or
[(ii)] a symbol of a synchronization signal (SS)/ physical broadcast channel (PBCH) block provided by ssb-PositionslnBurst (Chatterjee, see at least para. 99, for one non-limiting example for condition (ii), “…for a set of symbols of a slot that are indicated to the UE 102, by an ssb-PositionsInBurst element included in a System Information Block Type 1 (SIB1) or in a ServingCellConfigCommon information element (IE), for reception of synchronization signal/physical broadcast channel (SS/PBCH) blocks, if a transmission of a PUSCH, PUCCH or a PRACH in the slot would overlap with at least one symbol from the set of symbols: the UE 102 may refrain from transmission of the PUSCH, PUCCH or PRACH in the slot...”),
and wherein
[(iii)] a second slot is counted in the set of slots in a case where at least one of symbols allocated for the PUSCH transmission in the second slot does not overlap with a downlink symbol indicated by the tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon or the tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationDedicated (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: the UE 102 may refrain from reception of the PDSCH in the slot…”, note that para. 95 discloses 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...”, in other words, without refrain from reception of the PDSCH when no conflict),
or
[(iv)] a symbol of an SS/PBCH block provided by the ssb-PositionslnBurst (Chatterjee, see at least para. 99, for one non-limiting example for condition (iv), “…for a set of symbols of a slot that are indicated to the UE 102, by an ssb-PositionsInBurst element included in a System Information Block Type 1 (SIB1) or in a ServingCellConfigCommon information element (IE), for reception of synchronization signal/physical broadcast channel (SS/PBCH) blocks, if a transmission of a PUSCH, PUCCH or a PRACH in the slot would overlap with at least one symbol from the set of symbols: the UE 102 may refrain from transmission of the PUSCH, PUCCH or PRACH in the slot...”);
and
performing omission of the PUSCH transmission in the second slot 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 transmitting PUSCH respectively).
Chatterjee does not specifically teach a number of repetitions.
Yi 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 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 (RRC) 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, configuration information of the number of repetitions and configuration information of the number of slots. (Yi, see at least para. 235-236, “…A wireless device may repeat a transmission (e.g., a PUSCH transmission such as a TB) across multiple slots. A wireless device may apply a starting OFDM symbol S and a length L in a slot across K consecutive slots based on a single transmission layer, for example, for repetition type A with a repetition number K that is larger than 1...” and “...A wireless device may determine one or more slots for a quantity of repetitions equal to a nominal repetition number N...”)
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 32, Chatterjee in view of Yi teaches wherein the set of slots consists of K slots, K is the number of repetitions indicated by numberOfRepetitions or pusch-AggregationFactor, the first slot is not counted in the K slots, K> 1. (Yi, see at least para. 234-236, “…The wireless device may determine the quantity/number of repetitions based on an RRC parameter (e.g., pusch-AggregationFactor)...”)
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 33, Chatterjee in view of Yi teaches wherein the same symbol allocation is applied across the K slots and the PUSCH transmission is limited to a single transmission layer. (Yi, see at least para. 234-236, “…wireless device may repeat a transmission (e.g., a PUSCH transmission such as a TB) across multiple slots. A wireless device may apply a starting OFDM symbol S and a length L in a slot across K consecutive slots based on a single transmission layer, for example, for repetition type A with a repetition number K that is larger than 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 34, Chatterjee in view of Yi teaches the terminal device is operating in an unpaired spectrum. (Yi, see at least para. 300, “…The wireless device may determine an unpaired uplink spectrum, of a downlink carrier of the first cell, as the uplink carrier...”)
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 claims 36, 37, and 38, in view of claim 21 above, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 32, 33, and 34, respectively.
Regarding claims 40, 41, and 42, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 32, 33, and 34, respectively, except each of these claims is in apparatus claim format.
Claims 35, 39, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chatterjee in view of Yi, and further in view of Yi et al. (US 20220225360A1, hereinafter Yi_360).
Regarding claim 35,
Chatterjee in view of Yi teaches claim 17.
Chatterjee in view of Yi does not teach in a case where a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) transmission of larger priority index scheduled by a DCI format in a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) reception overlaps in time with a PUSCH transmission in the second slot of smaller priority index, cancelling the PUSCH transmission in the second slot before the first symbol that would overlap with the PUCCH transmission.
Yi_360 teaches in a case where a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) transmission of larger priority index scheduled by a DCI format in a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) reception overlaps in time with a PUSCH transmission in the second slot of smaller priority index, cancelling the PUSCH transmission in the second slot before the first symbol that would overlap with the PUCCH transmission. (Yi_360, see at least para. 302, “... based on the determining the conflict/overlapping, the wireless device may have a first PUCCH with a high priority (e.g., larger priority index) and either a PUSCH or a second PUCCH with a low priority (e.g., lower priority index) where the first PUCCH overlaps with either the PUSCH or the second PUCCH. The wireless device may determine to transmit the first PUCCH and may cancel either the PUSCH or the second PUCCH before a first symbol overlapping with the first PUCCH 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_360 into Chatterjee in view of Yi may improve scheduling flexibility and reduce latency of a data transmission.
Regarding claim 39, in view of claim 21 above, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 35.
Regarding claim 43, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claims 35 except this claim is in apparatus claim format.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/04/2026 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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights