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 .
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments see pages 4-5 filed on December 5, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103
Regarding amended independent claims 16 and 22, Applicant argued that “...the "continuous mapping" disclosed in Dai describes that continuous rate matching is performed for a 4-slot PUSCH over a 4-slot TTI, and does not disclose that rate matching is performed separately and distinctly for each slot, as recited in the independent claims…” (remarks page 5).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the combination of Echigo ‘688, Li ‘318 and Dai ‘915, in particular Dai ‘915 teaches ([0060], [0069], [0082]- [0084] and Figs. 4-6,), UE performing continuous mapping, where the UE determines a starting bit for each of the different slot of the PUSCH transmission. This determination of a starting bit for a different slot (e.g. second, third and fourth) shows that the rate matching is applied on a per-slot basis. Dai ‘915 further teaches the mapping of encoded bits in each slot which includes calculating the starting bit of each PUSCH transmission in each slot, which reads on applicants argued claim limitation.
Applicant argued that “…the independent claims implement continuous rate matching by defining a conditional statement that distinguishes between the first slot and non-first slots, and thereby subdivides the operation according to the position of the slot…” (remarks page 5)
The combination of Echigo ‘688, Li ‘318 and Dai ‘915, in particular Echigo ‘688 teaches ([0154]- [0157] and Figs. 6-7), determining a starting position of bits in the first slot for rate matching based on assigned RV to the first slot.
Dai ‘915 also teaches, ([0059], [0060], [0069], [0082]- [0084] and Figs. 4-6), RV of a first slot is indicated in the scheduling DCI and that the starting bit for the first slot is determined based on the RV, while for the different slots (i.e. second, third and fourth slots) continuous mapping rule is used to determine the starting bits. Thus, the combination of Echigo ‘688, Li ‘318 and Dai ‘915 as whole teaches, applicants argued claim limitations.
Regarding dependent claims 19-21 and 25-27 the Applicant argues these claims conditionally on that of their parent independent claims.
Applicant's arguments are unpersuasive and, therefore, the rejections of these claims are hereby maintained.
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.
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 16, 19-22 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Echigo et al (US 2024/0179688 A1) in view of Li et al (US 2023/0421318 A1) and further in view of Dai et al(US 2023/0379915 A1).
Regarding claims 16 and 22, Echigo ‘688 teaches, a terminal in a wireless communication system ([0058]- [0061] and Fig.1-3, UE 200 wirelessly communicating with gNB 100), the terminal comprising: a transceiver and at least one processor ([0058]-[0061] and Fig.1-3, UE 200 comprising control unit transceiver 110); configured to:
determine to perform a rate matching for a transport block over multi- slot physical uplink shared channel (TBoMS PUSCH) transmission ([0147]-[0148], [0151] and Figs. 6-7, performing rate matching for a TB over multi slot PUSCH), and determine a first starting position of bits for the rate matching based on a value of a redundancy version (RV), in case that the slot is the firs, time slot([0154]-[0157] and Figs. 6-7, one or more redundancy version(RVs) may be provided “assign an RV to which a different starting point is assigned..” , thus determining a starting position of bits for rate matching based on an RV to the first slot).
Echigo ‘688 does not explicitly teach, identify whether a slot is a first time slot within multiple slots associated with the TBoMS PUSCH transmission for the rate matching.
Li ‘318 teaches, identify whether a slot is a first time slot within multiple slots associated with the TBoMS PUSCH transmission for the rate matching ([0031]-[0033], [0059], determining and identifying a first slot of a plurality slots associated with TB before PUSCH transmission).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Echigo ‘688, by incorporating the teaching of Li ‘318, since such modification can effectively improve the efficiency of uplink transmission, by determining an available or valid or nominal first slot for uplink transmission and then determining an actual transmission behavior in the first slot, as suggested by Li ‘318([0034]).
The combination of Echigo ‘688 and Li ‘318 does not explicitly teach, determining a second starting position of bits for the rate matching as a position next to an ending position of the rate matching output bits in a previous time slot in case that the slot is a slot except for the first time slot.
Dai ‘915 teaches, determining a second starting position of bits for the rate matching as a position next to an ending position of the rate matching output bits in a previous time slot in case that the slot is a slot except for the first time slot ([0060], [0069], [0082]-[0084] and Figs. 4-6, performing continuous mapping across multiple slots, where the starting bit of a PUSCH transmission in a subsequent slot(e.g., third or fourth slot) follows the previous slot transmission).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Echigo ‘688, since such modification would provide improvements in wireless communication operations while increase transmission speed and flexibility, as suggested by Dai ‘915 ([0004], [0005]).
Regarding claims 19 and 25, the combination of Echigo ‘688, Li ‘318 and Dai ‘915 teaches all of the claim limitations, Echigo ‘688 further teaches, transmitting, to a base station, data for TBoMS PUSCH transmission based on the rate matching ([0140]-[0144], [0147] and Figs. 6, 7, UE transmitting PUSCH data for TB on multiple slots).
Regarding claims 20 and 26, the combination of Echigo ‘688, Li ‘318 and Dai ‘915, Dai ‘915 further teaches, wherein the rate matching is a continuous rate matching ([0059] [0060], [0069] and Figs. 4-6, performing continuous mapping across multiple slots).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Echigo ‘688, since such modification would provide improvements in wireless communication operations while increase transmission speed and flexibility, as suggested by Dai ‘915 ([0004], [0005]).
Regarding claims 21 and 27, the combination of Echigo ‘688, Li ‘318 and Dai ‘915 teaches all of the claim limitations, Echigo ‘688 further teaches, wherein the rate matching for the TBoMS PUSCH transmission is performed in case that the terminal supports the TBoMS PUSCH transmission ([0129], [0147], [0319], performing rate matching for TBoMS PUSCH based on the capability communicated to the network).
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 AWET A HAILE whose telephone number is (571)270-3114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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.
/AWET HAILE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474