DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The instant Office Action is in response to communication filed on 12/22/2025.
Claims 1, 6, 9, 14, 18, 20, 26 and 28 are pending. Claims 1, 14 and 26 are the base independent claims. Claims 1, 14 and 26 are amended.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
Regarding claim 1, Applicant files arguments with respect to amendment: see pages 6-7, “SU at most discloses two CE modes and the MCS indexes…However, SU simply involves one terminal…”
--In response, the arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner clarifies that SU discloses one or more UEs. In particular, at [0198], SU discloses that the base station sends two pieces of DCI to the UE2. Also see [0207], defining any one of values as early termination for the UE2. Examiner further explain that the CE mode of the UE reads on the amended limitation “in terms of terminal capability or channel state” because a different CE mode or a different type turns the UE into a different coverage capability or different channel state adaptation (SU, [0302]).
Nonetheless, new grounds of rejection are made by the combination of SU and Park based on the amended claim limitations. Upon further consideration, SU still applies to a portion of the independent claims because the amendment does not change the scope of this portion. The rest of the arguments have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new reference being used in the current rejection.
Regarding claims 14 and 26, because the patent scopes of the limitations in the independent claims are the same as in claim 1, therefore the claims are rejected based on the same reason given to claim 1 mutatis mutandis.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6, 9, 14, 18, 20, 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over SU et al (US 2020/0187237) and in view of Park et al (US 2020/0092044)
Regarding claim 1, SU discloses an early termination method, performed by a network, and comprising: indicating, through an information domain in Downlink Control Information (DCI) (par 7, par 126-128; e.g. DCI format carrying the early termination signal (ETS); also fig. 9), a first type of terminal to terminate a repeated transmission (par 168-169, 193 & par 205; e.g. If the UEs decode the group DCI and obtain the ACK feedback results corresponding to a HARQ process form the group DCI, the subsequent actions of the UEs includes terminating an on-going PUSCH transmission corresponding to the ETS), and the second type of terminal is different from the first type of terminal in terms of terminal capability or channel state (par 198, 207, or par 349; e.g. the way in which the terminal acquires the CE mode is that the terminal receives an ACK for reporting a configuration request or capability; hence different mode reads on different capability or channel state).
SU does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the information domain is further used to indicate a modulation and coding scheme of a second type of terminal.
However it is obvious in view of Park, because Park discloses:
In par 210, e.g. if partial RB-level UL scheduling is indicated…Accordingly, a modulation order (QPSK or 16QAM) …may be indicated by re-combining 4 bits of the legacy MCS field with 5 bits of the RB allocation field. It is understood, therefore, the terminal determines the modulation and coding scheme (MCS) using the legacy MCS field based on a different CE mode or different type.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of communication protocol configured for the electronic system of Park with the electronic system of SU. One is motivated as such to reduce unnecessary repeated transmissions (Park, par 3).
Regarding claim 6, SU discloses:
indicating, through the information domain in the DCI, the first type of terminal to terminate the repeated transmission comprises: indicating, by using all or part of bit information of the information domain, the first type of terminal to terminate the repeated transmission, or indicating, by using part of states represented by all or part of bit information of the information domain, the first type of terminal to terminate the repeated transmission (par 128-130; It is indicated to carry the ETS in at least one of the following ways: 1. using a value, which has not been used at present, in a certain field in the legacy DCI format; 2. changing the definition of a part of fields in the legacy DCI format; and 3. setting all other fields in the legacy DCI format as a predetermined value, for example, all "1" or all "0").
Regarding claim 9, SU discloses:
in response to indicating, by using the part of the bit information of the information domain, the first type of terminal to terminate the repeated transmission, using a remaining bit of the second information domain to indicate a modulation and coding scheme of the first type of terminal; or in response to indicating, by using the part of the states represented by all or part of the bit information of the information domain, the first type of terminal to terminate the repeated transmission, using a remaining state of the information domain to indicate a modulation and coding scheme of the first type of terminal (par 205; table 3; Values may be set in at least one of the following ways: defining any 2 of values as early termination of transmission of 2 UL HARQ processes for the UE1).
Regarding claims 14, 18, 20, 26 and 28, the rejection mapping is similar to claims 1, 6 and 9 because the patent scope is similar.
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 YAOTANG WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4023. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-18:00 ET (M, W, TH & alternate F).
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, HADI ARMOUCHE can be reached at 571-270-3618. 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.
/YAOTANG WANG/SCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights