DETAILED ACTION
Claims status
In response to the application filed on 05/20/2026, claims 1-6, 10, 13, 15, 19, 21-24, 28, 60 and 62 are currently pending for the examination. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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.
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 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 19, 21, 23, 24, 28, 60 and 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI et al. (US 2024/0056278 A1, as PCT filed on 12/18/2020) in view of CAO et al. (US 2019/0230689 A1).
Regarding claim 1; LI teaches a method performed by a terminal device, comprising:
determining whether a slot to be an available slot (See Fig. 4 and step 402: determining a time domain resource in each of one or more available uplink slots based on the time domain resource assignment field. ¶ [0062]) for a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) repetition (See Fig. 4: a resource allocation in a time domain is defined by a starting symbol “S” relative to a start of a slot, and a total number of consecutive symbols “L” counting from the symbol “S” allocated for the PUSCH transmission…the UL data includes a PUSCH repetition (e.g., a PUSCH repetition type A). ¶ [0036] and ¶ [0062]) based on a number symbols available for PUSCH transmission within the slot being equal to scheduled symbols (LI: FIG. 6 can guarantee that the actual total number of PUSCH repetition(s) (i.e., amount of available symbols) equals to the nominal PUSCH repetition total number (i.e., the configured PUSCH repetition number 8 or scheduled symbols within the slot). ¶ [0103]) for the PUSCH transmission (See Fig. 6: determining a set of symbols to transmit PUSCH repetition(s) in an available UL slot and determining a set of symbols to transmit PUSCH repetition(s)...¶ [0103]); and
performing a number of PUSCH repetitions through a number of determined available slots (See Fig. 7: determining if the total number of symbols in an available symbol set R is greater than or equals to L plus a possible a Rx-Tx transition time, there are enough resources for the PUSCH repetition transmission (i.e., K number of repetitions). See ¶ [0112]).
Even though, LI discloses determining the actual total number of PUSCH repetitions equals to the nominal PUSCH repetition as scheduled, LI doesn’t explicitly provide the number of determined available slots being equal to the number of PUSCH repetitions.
However, Cao further states the number of determined available slots being equal to the number of PUSCH repetitions (Cao: See Figs. 5 and 6: receiving PUSCH repetitions through equal to or less than K available slots. ¶ [0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide the number of determined available slots being equal to the number of PUSCH repetitions as taught by Cao to have incorporated in the system of LI, so that it would provide that grant-free transmission reduces latency and control overhead associated with grant-based procedures, and can allow for more retransmissions/repetitions to increase reliability. Cao: ¶ [0094].
[Office’s Note: Because of the alternative claim language such as “at least in part”, only one of the alternative limitations has been analyzed by the examiner].
Regarding claim 3; LI in view Cao discloses the method wherein redundancy version, RV, cycling is counted based on the determined available slots for the PUSCH transmission (Cao: the K TOs are associated with a redundant version (RV) sequence comprising a plurality of RV indices, each TO being mapped to a RV index of the plurality of RV indices. ¶ [0029]).
Regarding claim 5; LI in view of Cao discloses the method wherein a number of PUSCH repetitions depends on a first type of the PUSCH repetition (Cao: the first UL transmission comprises K repetitions to be transmitted in the respective K TOs, and the K repetitions comprises an initial transmission and at least one retransmission of the initial transmission. See Cao’s claim 1).
Regarding claim 6; LI in view of Cao discloses the method further comprising: receiving configuration information about one or more PUSCH repetition types from a network node (LI: ¶ [0041]), wherein the one or more PUSCH repetition types include the first type of the PUSCH repetition, and each of the one or more PUSCH repetition types supports at least one candidate number of PUSCH repetitions (Cao: where the transmission resource is allocated for uplink (UL) transmissions during a time duration, and includes K transmission occasions (TOs), and K is an integer greater than 1. The method further includes transmitting, by the UE, a first UL transmission in the transmission resource omitting the first OFDM symbol. The first UL transmission includes K repetitions to be transmitted in the respective K TOs, and the K repetitions include an initial transmission and at least one retransmission of the initial transmission. ¶ [0009]).
Regarding claim 10; LI in view of Cao teaches the method wherein the first type of the PUSCH repetition supports an extended number of PUSCH repetitions (Cao: when a number X of available OFDM symbols in one of the K transmission occasions, wherein X is an integer value >1, is greater than a threshold of OFDM symbols that can be used for a grant-free allocation. ¶ [0216]).
Regarding claim 19; LI teaches a method performed by a network node, comprising:
determining whether a slot to be an available slot (See Fig. 4 and step 402: determining a time domain resource in each of one or more available uplink slots based on the time domain resource assignment field. ¶ [0062]) for a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) repetition (See Fig. 4: the UL data includes a PUSCH repetition (e.g., a PUSCH repetition type A). ¶ [0062]) based on a number symbols available for PUSCH transmission within the slot being equal to scheduled symbols (LI: FIG. 6 can guarantee that the actual total number of PUSCH repetition(s) (i.e., amount of available symbols) equals to the nominal PUSCH repetition total number (i.e., the configured PUSCH repetition number 8 or scheduled symbols within the slot). ¶ [0103]) for the PUSCH transmission (See Fig. 6: determining a set of symbols to transmit PUSCH repetition(s) in an available UL slot and determining a set of symbols to transmit PUSCH repetition(s)...¶ [0103]); and
receiving a number of PUSCH repetitions through a number of determined available slots (See Fig. 7: determining if the total number of symbols in an available symbol set R is greater than or equals to L plus a possible a Rx-Tx transition time, there are enough resources for the PUSCH repetition transmission (i.e., K number of repetitions). See ¶ [0112]).
Even though, LI discloses determining the actual total number of PUSCH repetitions equals to the nominal PUSCH repetition as scheduled, LI doesn’t explicitly provide the number of determined available slots being equal to the number of PUSCH repetitions.
However, Cao further states the number of determined available slots being equal to the number of PUSCH repetitions (Cao: See Figs. 5 and 6: receiving PUSCH repetitions through equal to or less than K available slots. ¶ [0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide the number of determined available slots being equal to the number of PUSCH repetitions as taught by Cao to have incorporated in the system of LI, so that it would provide that grant-free transmission reduces latency and control overhead associated with grant-based procedures, and can allow for more retransmissions/repetitions to increase reliability. Cao: ¶ [0094].
[Office’s Note: Because of the alternative claim language such as “at least in part”, only one of the alternative limitations has been analyzed by the examiner].
Regarding claim 21; LI in view Cao discloses the method wherein redundancy version, RV, cycling is counted based on the determined available slots for the PUSCH transmission (Cao: the K TOs are associated with a redundant version (RV) sequence comprising a plurality of RV indices, each TO being mapped to a RV index of the plurality of RV indices. ¶ [0029]).
Regarding claim 23; LI in view of Cao discloses the method wherein a number of PUSCH repetitions depends on a first type of the PUSCH repetition (Cao: the first UL transmission comprises K repetitions to be transmitted in the respective K TOs, and the K repetitions comprises an initial transmission and at least one retransmission of the initial transmission. See Cao’s claim 1).
Regarding claim 24; LI in view of Cao discloses the method further comprising: receiving configuration information about one or more PUSCH repetition types from a network node (LI: ¶ [0041]), wherein the one or more PUSCH repetition types include the first type of the PUSCH repetition, and each of the one or more PUSCH repetition types supports at least one candidate number of PUSCH repetitions (Cao: where the transmission resource is allocated for uplink (UL) transmissions during a time duration, and includes K transmission occasions (TOs), and K is an integer greater than 1. The method further includes transmitting, by the UE, a first UL transmission in the transmission resource omitting the first OFDM symbol. The first UL transmission includes K repetitions to be transmitted in the respective K TOs, and the K repetitions include an initial transmission and at least one retransmission of the initial transmission. ¶ [0009]).
Regarding claim 28; LI in view of Cao teaches the method wherein the first type of the PUSCH repetition supports an extended number of PUSCH repetitions (Cao: when a number X of available OFDM symbols in one of the K transmission occasions, wherein X is an integer value >1, is greater than a threshold of OFDM symbols that can be used for a grant-free allocation. ¶ [0216]).
Regarding claim 60; LI teaches a terminal device comprising a processor circuitry, and memory coupled to the processing circuitry and having instructions stored therein that are executable by the processing circuitry to cause the terminal device to perform operations comprising:
determining whether a slot to be an available slot (See Fig. 4 and step 402: determining a time domain resource in each of one or more available uplink slots based on the time domain resource assignment field. ¶ [0062]) for a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) repetition (See Fig. 4: a resource allocation in a time domain is defined by a starting symbol “S” relative to a start of a slot, and a total number of consecutive symbols “L” counting from the symbol “S” allocated for the PUSCH transmission…the UL data includes a PUSCH repetition (e.g., a PUSCH repetition type A). ¶ [0036] and ¶ [0062]) based on a number symbols available for PUSCH transmission within the slot being equal to scheduled symbols (LI: FIG. 6 can guarantee that the actual total number of PUSCH repetition(s) (i.e., amount of available symbols) equals to the nominal PUSCH repetition total number (i.e., the configured PUSCH repetition number 8 or scheduled symbols within the slot). ¶ [0103]) for the PUSCH transmission (See Fig. 6: determining a set of symbols to transmit PUSCH repetition(s) in an available UL slot and determining a set of symbols to transmit PUSCH repetition(s)...¶ [0103]); and
performing a number of PUSCH repetitions through a number of determined available slots (See Fig. 7: determining if the total number of symbols in an available symbol set R is greater than or equals to L plus a possible a Rx-Tx transition time, there are enough resources for the PUSCH repetition transmission (i.e., K number of repetitions). See ¶ [0112]).
Even though, LI discloses determining the actual total number of PUSCH repetitions equals to the nominal PUSCH repetition as scheduled, LI doesn’t explicitly provide the number of determined available slots being equal to the number of PUSCH repetitions.
However, Cao further states the number of determined available slots being equal to the number of PUSCH repetitions (Cao: See Figs. 5 and 6: receiving PUSCH repetitions through equal to or less than K available slots. ¶ [0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide the number of determined available slots being equal to the number of PUSCH repetitions as taught by Cao to have incorporated in the system of LI, so that it would provide that grant-free transmission reduces latency and control overhead associated with grant-based procedures, and can allow for more retransmissions/repetitions to increase reliability. Cao: ¶ [0094].
[Office’s Note: Because of the alternative claim language such as “at least in part”, only one of the alternative limitations has been analyzed by the examiner].
Regarding claim 62; LI teaches a network node comprising a processor and a memory coupled to the processing circuitry and having instructions stored therein that are executable by the processing circuitry to cause the terminal device to perform operations comprising:
determining whether a slot to be an available slot (See Fig. 4 and step 402: determining a time domain resource in each of one or more available uplink slots based on the time domain resource assignment field. ¶ [0062]) for a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) repetition (See Fig. 4: the UL data includes a PUSCH repetition (e.g., a PUSCH repetition type A). ¶ [0062]) based on a number symbols available for PUSCH transmission within the slot being equal to scheduled symbols (LI: FIG. 6 can guarantee that the actual total number of PUSCH repetition(s) (i.e., amount of available symbols) equals to the nominal PUSCH repetition total number (i.e., the configured PUSCH repetition number 8 or scheduled symbols within the slot). ¶ [0103]) for the PUSCH transmission (See Fig. 6: determining a set of symbols to transmit PUSCH repetition(s) in an available UL slot and determining a set of symbols to transmit PUSCH repetition(s)...¶ [0103]); and
receiving a number of PUSCH repetitions through a number of determined available slots (See Fig. 7: determining if the total number of symbols in an available symbol set R is greater than or equals to L plus a possible a Rx-Tx transition time, there are enough resources for the PUSCH repetition transmission (i.e., K number of repetitions). See ¶ [0112]).
Even though, LI discloses determining the actual total number of PUSCH repetitions equals to the nominal PUSCH repetition as scheduled, LI doesn’t explicitly provide the number of determined available slots being equal to the number of PUSCH repetitions.
However, Cao further states the number of determined available slots being equal to the number of PUSCH repetitions (Cao: See Figs. 5 and 6: receiving PUSCH repetitions through equal to or less than K available slots. ¶ [0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide the number of determined available slots being equal to the number of PUSCH repetitions as taught by Cao to have incorporated in the system of LI, so that it would provide that grant-free transmission reduces latency and control overhead associated with grant-based procedures, and can allow for more retransmissions/repetitions to increase reliability. Cao: ¶ [0094].
[Office’s Note: Because of the alternative claim language such as “at least in part”, only one of the alternative limitations has been analyzed by the examiner].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 13, 15 and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon the rejected base claims but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
In response to the amendment as filed on 05/20/2026, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 10, 13, 15, 19, 21-24, 28, 60 and 62 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Arguments:
Applicant argues that the cited prior art fails to teach the amended limitation of: “determining an available slot for PUSCH repetition based on a number of symbols available for PUSCH within the slot being equal to a number of symbols scheduled for the PUSCH.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
At the outset, Applicant's amendment merely changes the phrase "in the slot" to "within the slot." Examiner notes that this amendment does not materially alter the scope of the claim, as both phrases refer to symbols allocated inside a particular slot. Accordingly, the amendment does not overcome the teachings previously relied upon in the rejection, and the prior-art mappings remain applicable.
Specifically, Li et al. (US 2024/0056278 A1) teaches determining whether a slot is an available slot for PUSCH repetition. Li discloses determining a time-domain resource in each of one or more available uplink slots based on a time-domain resource assignment field (Fig. 4, step 402; ¶ [0062]). Li further teaches that a resource allocation in the time domain is defined by a starting symbol “S” relative to the start of a slot and a total number of consecutive symbols “L” allocated for PUSCH transmission (¶ [0036]). The uplink data includes PUSCH repetitions, such as PUSCH repetition Type A (¶¶ [0036], [0062]).
Furthermore, Li teaches determining slot availability based on the equality between available symbols and scheduled symbols. In particular, Li explicitly states that the actual total number of PUSCH repetitions corresponds to the nominal PUSCH repetition total number, i.e., the configured or scheduled repetition number (Fig. 6; ¶ [0103]). Figure 6 and paragraph [0103] describe determining sets of symbols for transmitting PUSCH repetitions in available uplink slots such that the actual amount of available transmission resources matches the scheduled repetition configuration. Therefore, Li teaches determining that a slot is available for PUSCH repetition based on whether the available symbols within the slot satisfy the scheduled symbol requirement.
Additionally, Li discloses determining whether the total number of symbols in an available symbol set is greater than or equal to L, plus any applicable Rx-Tx transition time, thereby confirming sufficient resources for the configured repetitions (Fig. 7; ¶ [0112]). This teaches performing PUSCH repetitions through determined available slots.
While Li teaches that the actual total number of PUSCH repetitions equals the nominal scheduled repetition number, Cao et al. (US 2019/0230689 A1) further teaches the correspondence between the number of available slots and the number of PUSCH repetitions. Specifically, Cao discloses receiving PUSCH repetitions through a number of available slots equal to or less than K repetitions (Figs. 5–6; ¶ [0024]). Thus, Cao expressly associates the number of available slots with the configured repetition count.
Accordingly, the combination of Li and Cao teaches:
determining slot availability based on the sufficiency of symbols available within a slot relative to the scheduled PUSCH symbols (Li); and
performing PUSCH repetitions through a corresponding number of determined available slots (Cao).
Therefore, Applicant's amendment from "in the slot" to "within the slot" does not distinguish the claimed invention from the cited teachings. The combination of Li and Cao continues to teach or at least render obvious the amended limitation. Accordingly, Applicant's argument is not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
SHI et al. (US 2022/0201691 A1).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAI AUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-3507. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, Alt Fridays, 7:30 AM- 5:00 PM (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Noel Beharry can be reached on 571-270-5630. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAI AUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2416
Prosecution Insights