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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 9-10, 14-15, and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in People’s Republic of China on 23 January 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copies of the CN202410096738.6 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings, received on 05 February 2024, are acceptable for examination.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 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, 7, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boroujeni et al. (US 20220322417 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Boroujeni”) in view of Ye et al. (US 20250365732 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Ye”).
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 17.
Regarding Claim 11, Boroujeni discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a transceiver (¶156 & Fig. 8, Boroujeni discloses user equipment (UE) comprising a transceiver 815) which, during operation, wirelessly communicates with at least one network node of a wireless network (¶158 & Fig. 8, Boroujeni discloses the transceiver 815 is configured to communicate bi-directionally, via the one or more antennas 825, by concurrently transmitting or receiving multiple wireless transmissions); and
a processor (¶156 & Fig. 8, Boroujeni discloses user equipment (UE) comprising a processor 840) communicatively coupled to the transceiver (¶156 & Fig. 8, Boroujeni discloses that the processor 840 coupled to the transceiver 815 via a bus 845) such that, during operation, the processor performs operations comprising:
receiving, via the transceiver, a system information block (SIB) from the network node (¶121 & Fig. 3 (310) & ¶103 & Fig. 2, Boroujeni discloses receiving, by the UE, a random access channel (RACH) configuration via a system information block (SIB) from a base station (BS) 305 of a wireless communication system), wherein the SIB comprises one or more physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) repetition numbers for Message 4 (Msg4) (¶121 & Fig. 3 (310) & ¶103 & Fig. 2, Boroujeni discloses that the RACH configuration of the SIB indicates a plurality of Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) repetition numbers. ¶125, Boroujeni further discloses that the PUCCH repetition number is a repetition parameter corresponding to a HARQ-ACK feedback for a fourth random access message (MSG4)); and
transmitting, via the transceiver, with repetitions a PUCCH with HARQ-ACK information or HARQ-NACK information for Msg4 to the network node (¶126 & Fig. 3 (365), Boroujeni discloses transmitting, by the UE to the BS, feedback where the feedback includes repetitions of a HARQ-ACK feedback for MSG 4 over a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH)) according to one of the one or more PUCCH repetition numbers for Msg4 (¶126 & Fig. 3 (365), Boroujeni discloses that the transmission of the feedback, including repetitions of a HARQ-ACK feedback for MSG 4, is according to a PUCCH repetition parameter indicated by MSG4).
However, Boroujeni does not disclose reporting, via the transceiver, a capability indication of PUCCH repetition for Msg4 hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ)-acknowledgement (ACK) or Msg4 HARQ-negative ACK (NACK) to the network node through a Message 1 (Msg1) or a Message 3 (Msg3).
Ye, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches reporting, via the transceiver, a capability indication of PUCCH repetition for Msg4 hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ)-acknowledgement (ACK) or Msg4 HARQ-negative ACK (NACK) to the network node through a Message 1 (Msg1) or a Message 3 (Msg3) (¶34-35 & ¶25-26 & Fig. 1 (106), Ye discloses transmitting, by the UE, a Physical Random Access Channel (PRACH) preamble (MSG 1) where the RACH preamble (MSG1) indicates a UE capability for PUCCH repetition of MSG4 HARQ-ACK transmission).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boroujeni by reporting, via the transceiver, a capability indication of PUCCH repetition for Msg4 hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ)-acknowledgement (ACK) or Msg4 HARQ-negative ACK (NACK) to the network node through a Message 1 (Msg1) or a Message 3 (Msg3) as taught by Ye because coverage and/or efficiency for non-terrestrial network (NTN) communication is improved by specifying physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) enhancements for a fourth message (Msg4) Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request Acknowledge (HARQ-ACK) transmission (e.g., repetition) in a random-access channel (RACH) procedure (Ye, ¶22).
Regarding Claim 17, Boroujeni in view of Ye discloses the apparatus of Claim 11.
Boroujeni further discloses wherein, during operation, the processor is further configured to perform operations comprising:
determining the one PUCCH repetition number for Msg4 based on a downlink control information (DCI) (¶125 & Fig. 3 (355), Boroujeni discloses determining, by the UE, a PUCCH repetition parameter for HARQ-ACK feedback for MSG4 based upon receiving, by the UE from the BS, MSG4 over a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH). Examiner correlates receipt of control information, like a PUCCH repetition parameters, over the PDCCH as downlink control information (DCI)) in an event that more than one PUCCH repetition numbers are configured in the SIB (¶125 & ¶121 & Fig. 3 (310-355) & ¶103 & Fig. 2, Boroujeni discloses that the determination of the PUCCH repetition number in MSG4 is in response to receiving a RACH configuration of the SIB indicates a plurality of Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) repetition numbers); or
determining the one PUCCH repetition number for Msg4 based on the SIB in an event that only one PUCCH repetition number is configured in the SIB (Examiner notes that the use of “or” and “and/or” has a broadest reasonable interpretation of any element in the list that follows or any of those elements taken together. See Ex Parte Gross, Appeal 2011-004811, Application No. 11/565,411. Thus, Examiner has not treated all limitations separated by “and/or” and “or”).
Claims 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boroujeni in view of Ye in further view of Li et al. (US 20250007654 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Li”).
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 12, Boroujeni in view of Ye discloses the apparatus of Claim 11.
However, Boroujeni in view of Ye does not disclose wherein, during operation, in reporting the capability indication of PUCCH repetition for Msg4 HARQ-ACK or Msg4 HARQ-NACK, the processor is configured to perform operations comprising: reporting, via the transceiver, another capability indication of physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) repetition for Msg3 through the Msg1.
Li, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein, during operation, in reporting the capability indication of PUCCH repetition for Msg4 HARQ-ACK or Msg4 HARQ-NACK, the processor is configured to perform operations comprising:
reporting, via the transceiver, another capability indication of physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) repetition for Msg3 through the Msg1 (¶78 & Fig. 6 (603A) & ¶94, Li discloses transmitting, by the UE on random access channel (RACH) resources, one or more repetition requests in conjunction with transmission of MSG1, or the preamble, where the one or more repetition request include one or more of a RACH Msg 3 PUSCH repetition request, a RACH Msg 4 PUCCH repetition request, or a RACH Msg 4 PUCCH repetition number indication).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boroujeni in view of Ye by reporting, via the transceiver, another capability indication of physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) repetition for Msg3 through the Msg1 as taught by Li because communication efficiency is improved by reducing signaling overhead for a UE to indicate a request for repetitions requests of random access messages and/or to indicate a repetition number for random access messages (Li, ¶76).
Regarding Claim 13, Boroujeni in view of Ye discloses the apparatus of Claim 11.
However, Boroujeni in view of Ye does not disclose wherein, during operation, in reporting the capability indication of PUCCH repetition for Msg4 HARQ-ACK or Msg4 HARQ-NACK to the network node through the Msg1 or the Msg3, the processor is configured to perform operations comprising: reporting, via the transceiver, the capability indication of PUCCH repetition for Msg4 HARQ-ACK or Msg4 HARQ-NACK and another capability indication of PUSCH repetition for Msg3.
Li, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein, during operation, in reporting the capability indication of PUCCH repetition for Msg4 HARQ-ACK or Msg4 HARQ-NACK to the network node through the Msg1 or the Msg3, the processor is configured to perform operations comprising:
reporting, via the transceiver, the capability indication of PUCCH repetition for Msg4 HARQ-ACK or Msg4 HARQ-NACK and another capability indication of PUSCH repetition for Msg3 (¶78 & Fig. 6 (603A) & ¶94, Li discloses transmitting, by the UE on random access channel (RACH) resources, one or more repetition requests in conjunction with transmission of MSG1, or the preamble, where the one or more repetition request include one or more of a RACH Msg 3 PUSCH repetition request, a RACH Msg 4 PUCCH repetition request, or a RACH Msg 4 PUCCH repetition number indication).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boroujeni in view of Ye by reporting, via the transceiver, the capability indication of PUCCH repetition for Msg4 HARQ-ACK or Msg4 HARQ-NACK and another capability indication of PUSCH repetition for Msg3 as taught by Li because communication efficiency is improved by reducing signaling overhead for a UE to indicate a request for repetitions requests of random access messages and/or to indicate a repetition number for random access messages (Li, ¶76).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boroujeni in view of Ye in further view of Chatterjee et al. (US 20190182824 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Chatterjee”).
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 16.
Regarding Claim 16, Boroujeni in view of Ye discloses the apparatus of Claim 11.
However, Boroujeni in view of Ye does not disclose wherein the one PUCCH repetition number for Msg4 is determined based on a configuration of a PUSCH repetition number for Msg3.
Chatterjee, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the one PUCCH repetition number for Msg4 is determined based on a configuration of a PUSCH repetition number for Msg3 (¶53 & Claim 41, Chatterjee discloses that the DCI indicates a number of PUCCH repetitions from a set of values derived based at least in part on a mapping from a repetition number used for Message 3 transmission).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boroujeni in view of Ye by requiring that the one PUCCH repetition number for Msg4 is determined based on a configuration of a PUSCH repetition number for Msg3 as taught by Chatterjee because coverage support for MTC user equipment (UE) devices is enhanced by providing physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) transmissions on the uplink (UL) carrying hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) acknowledgement (ACK) feedback with multiple repetitions in response to downlink (DL) transmissions on the DL shared channel or scheduling request (SR) (Chatterjee, ¶5).
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boroujeni in view of Ye in further view of Fakoorian et al. (US 20240323963 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Fakoorian”).
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 18.
Regarding Claim 18, Boroujeni in view of Ye discloses the apparatus of Claim 11.
However, Boroujeni in view of Ye does not disclose wherein, during operation, the processor is further configured to perform operations comprising: receiving, via the transceiver, a frequency hopping indication which is configured in the SIB or a DCI from the network node, wherein the frequency hopping indication indicates that an intra-slot frequency hopping or an inter-slot frequency hopping is used for each repetition of the PUCCH transmission with HARQ-ACK information or HARQ- NACK information for Msg4; or determining that the intra-slot frequency hopping is used for each repetition of the PUCCH transmission with HARQ-ACK information or HARQ-NACK information for Msg4 in an event that the frequency hopping indication is not configured in the SIB.
Fakoorian, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein, during operation, the processor is further configured to perform operations comprising:
receiving, via the transceiver, a frequency hopping indication which is configured in the SIB or a DCI from the network node (¶36 & Fig. 4 (405), Fakoorian discloses receiving, by the UE, cell-specific PUCCH configuration where the cell-specific PUCCH configuration indicates a frequency hopping type. Examiner correlates cell-specific PUCCH configuration to a DCI), wherein the frequency hopping indication indicates that an intra-slot frequency hopping or an inter-slot frequency hopping is used for each repetition of the PUCCH transmission (¶40 & Fig. 4 (420), Fakoorian discloses that the frequency hopping type indicates that either an inter-slot frequency hopping or an intra-slot frequency hopping is used for repetition of the PUCCH transmission) with HARQ-ACK information or HARQ- NACK information for Msg4 (¶15, Fakoorian discloses that the repetition of the PUCCH transmission is a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) over a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) to acknowledge reception of the Message 4 (MSG4) transmission); or
determining that the intra-slot frequency hopping is used for each repetition of the PUCCH transmission with HARQ-ACK information or HARQ-NACK information for Msg4 in an event that the frequency hopping indication is not configured in the SIB (Examiner notes that the use of “or” and “and/or” has a broadest reasonable interpretation of any element in the list that follows or any of those elements taken together. See Ex Parte Gross, Appeal 2011-004811, Application No. 11/565,411. Thus, Examiner has not treated all limitations separated by “and/or” and “or”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boroujeni in view of Ye by receiving, via the transceiver, a frequency hopping indication which is configured in the SIB or a DCI from the network node, wherein the frequency hopping indication indicates that an intra-slot frequency hopping or an inter-slot frequency hopping is used for each repetition of the PUCCH transmission with HARQ-ACK information or HARQ- NACK information for Msg4 as taught by Chatterjee because the reliability of HARQ-ACK transmissions to acknowledge Message 4 (MSG4) transmissions is improved (Fakoorian, ¶2).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of copending Application No. 18/520,666 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘666 Application”) in view of Boroujeni. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 17.
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 14 of the ‘666 Application discloses an apparatus, comprising:
receiving, via the transceiver, a system information block (SIB) from the network node (Claim 14 of the ‘666 Application discloses receive, from a base station, a system information block (SIB)), wherein the SIB comprises one or more physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) repetition numbers for Message 4 (Msg4) (Claim 14 of the ‘666 Application discloses determine whether the SIB includes a set of candidate repetition factors for physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) transmissions);
reporting, via the transceiver, a capability indication of PUCCH repetition (Claim 14 of the ‘666 Application discloses transmit, to the base station in a message of a random access procedure, an indication of a capability of the UE for PUCCH repetition) for Msg4 hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ)-acknowledgement (ACK) or Msg4 HARQ-negative ACK (NACK) to the network node (Claim 9 of the ‘666 Application discloses transmitting the ACK or the NACK of the message 4 in the PUCCH and/or other PUCCH transmissions using a PUCCH-ConfigCommon information element with frequency hopping in accordance with the frequency hopping parameter) through a Message 1 (Msg1) or a Message 3 (Msg3) (Claim 18 of the ‘666 Application discloses the indication of the capability is transmitted in a message 1 or a message 3 of the random access procedure); and
transmitting, via the transceiver, with repetitions a PUCCH with HARQ-ACK information or HARQ-NACK information for Msg4 to the network node according to one of the one or more PUCCH repetition numbers for Msg4 (Claim 14 of the ‘666 Application discloses transmitting an acknowledgement (ACK) or negative acknowledgement (NACK) of a message 4 of the random access procedure in a PUCCH in accordance with the particular repetition factor).
However, Claim 14 of the ‘666 Application does not disclose a transceiver which, during operation, wirelessly communicates with at least one network node of a wireless network; and a processor communicatively coupled to the transceiver such that, during operation, the processor performs operations.
Boroujeni, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches a transceiver (¶156 & Fig. 8, Boroujeni discloses user equipment (UE) comprising a transceiver 815) which, during operation, wirelessly communicates with at least one network node of a wireless network (¶158 & Fig. 8, Boroujeni discloses the transceiver 815 is configured to communicate bi-directionally, via the one or more antennas 825, by concurrently transmitting or receiving multiple wireless transmissions); and
a processor (¶156 & Fig. 8, Boroujeni discloses user equipment (UE) comprising a processor 840) communicatively coupled to the transceiver (¶156 & Fig. 8, Boroujeni discloses that the processor 840 coupled to the transceiver 815 via a bus 845) such that, during operation, the processor performs operations (¶121-127 & Fig. 3 & ¶103 & Fig. 2, Boroujeni discloses the UE performing operations).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 14 of the ‘666 Application by requiring a transceiver which, during operation, wirelessly communicates with at least one network node of a wireless network; and a processor communicatively coupled to the transceiver such that, during operation, the processor performs operations as taught by Boroujeni because higher reliability and lower latency random access procedures is promoted by improving the reliability of feedback transmission using PUCCH repetitions (Boroujeni, ¶7).
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 14 of the ‘666 Application in view of Boroujeni discloses the apparatus of Claim 11.
Boroujeni, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, further teaches wherein, during operation, the processor is further configured to perform operations comprising:
determining the one PUCCH repetition number for Msg4 based on a downlink control information (DCI) (¶125 & Fig. 3 (355), Boroujeni discloses determining, by the UE to the BS, a PUCCH repetition parameter for HARQ-ACK feedback for MSG4 based upon receiving, by the UE from the BS, MSG4 over a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH). Examiner correlates receipt of control information, like a PUCCH repetition parameters, over the PDCCH as downlink control information (DCI)) in an event that more than one PUCCH repetition numbers are configured in the SIB (¶125 & ¶121 & Fig. 3 (310-355) & ¶103 & Fig. 2, Boroujeni discloses that the determination of the PUCCH repetition number in MSG4 is in response to receiving a RACH configuration of the SIB indicates a plurality of Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) repetition numbers); or
determining the one PUCCH repetition number for Msg4 based on the SIB in an event that only one PUCCH repetition number is configured in the SIB (Examiner notes that the use of “or” and “and/or” has a broadest reasonable interpretation of any element in the list that follows or any of those elements taken together. See Ex Parte Gross, Appeal 2011-004811, Application No. 11/565,411. Thus, Examiner has not treated all limitations separated by “and/or” and “or”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 14 of the ‘666 Application in view of Boroujeni by determining the one PUCCH repetition number for Msg4 based on a downlink control information (DCI) in an event that more than one PUCCH repetition numbers are configured in the SIB as taught by Boroujeni because higher reliability and lower latency random access procedures is promoted by improving the reliability of feedback transmission using PUCCH repetitions (Boroujeni, ¶7).
Claims 2-3 and 12-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of the copending ‘666 Application in view of Boroujeni in further view of Li.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 14 of the ‘666 Application in view of Boroujeni discloses the apparatus of Claim 11.
However, Claim 14 of the ‘666 Application in view of Boroujeni does not disclose wherein, during operation, in reporting the capability indication of PUCCH repetition for Msg4 HARQ-ACK or Msg4 HARQ-NACK, the processor is configured to perform operations comprising: reporting, via the transceiver, another capability indication of physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) repetition for Msg3 through the Msg1.
Li, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein, during operation, in reporting the capability indication of PUCCH repetition for Msg4 HARQ-ACK or Msg4 HARQ-NACK, the processor is configured to perform operations comprising:
reporting, via the transceiver, another capability indication of physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) repetition for Msg3 through the Msg1 (¶78 & Fig. 6 (603A) & ¶94, Li discloses transmitting, by the UE on random access channel (RACH) resources, one or more repetition requests in conjunction with transmission of MSG1, or the preamble, where the one or more repetition request include one or more of a RACH Msg 3 PUSCH repetition request, a RACH Msg 4 PUCCH repetition request, or a RACH Msg 4 PUCCH repetition number indication).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 14 of the ‘666 Application in view of Boroujeni by reporting, via the transceiver, another capability indication of physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) repetition for Msg3 through the Msg1 as taught by Li because communication efficiency is improved by reducing signaling overhead for a UE to indicate a request for repetitions requests of random access messages and/or to indicate a repetition number for random access messages (Li, ¶76).
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 14 of the ‘666 Application in view of Boroujeni discloses the apparatus of Claim 11.
However, Claim 14 of the ‘666 Application in view of Boroujeni does not disclose wherein, during operation, in reporting the capability indication of PUCCH repetition for Msg4 HARQ-ACK or Msg4 HARQ-NACK to the network node through the Msg1 or the Msg3, the processor is configured to perform operations comprising: reporting, via the transceiver, the capability indication of PUCCH repetition for Msg4 HARQ-ACK or Msg4 HARQ-NACK and another capability indication of PUSCH repetition for Msg3.
Li, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein, during operation, in reporting the capability indication of PUCCH repetition for Msg4 HARQ-ACK or Msg4 HARQ-NACK to the network node through the Msg1 or the Msg3, the processor is configured to perform operations comprising:
reporting, via the transceiver, the capability indication of PUCCH repetition for Msg4 HARQ-ACK or Msg4 HARQ-NACK and another capability indication of PUSCH repetition for Msg3 (¶78 & Fig. 6 (603A) & ¶94, Li discloses transmitting, by the UE on random access channel (RACH) resources, one or more repetition requests in conjunction with transmission of MSG1, or the preamble, where the one or more repetition request include one or more of a RACH Msg 3 PUSCH repetition request, a RACH Msg 4 PUCCH repetition request, or a RACH Msg 4 PUCCH repetition number indication).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 14 of the ‘666 Application in view of Boroujeni by reporting, via the transceiver, the capability indication of PUCCH repetition for Msg4 HARQ-ACK or Msg4 HARQ-NACK and another capability indication of PUSCH repetition for Msg3 as taught by Li because communication efficiency is improved by reducing signaling overhead for a UE to indicate a request for repetitions requests of random access messages and/or to indicate a repetition number for random access messages (Li, ¶76).
Claims 6 and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of the copending ‘666 Application in view of Boroujeni in further view of Chatterjee.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 16.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 14 of the ‘666 Application in view of Boroujeni discloses the apparatus of Claim 11.
However, Claim 14 of the ‘666 Application in view of Boroujeni does not disclose wherein the one PUCCH repetition number for Msg4 is determined based on a configuration of a PUSCH repetition number for Msg3.
Chatterjee, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the one PUCCH repetition number for Msg4 is determined based on a configuration of a PUSCH repetition number for Msg3 (¶53 & Claim 41, Chatterjee discloses that the DCI indicates a number of PUCCH repetitions from a set of values derived based at least in part on a mapping from a repetition number used for Message 3 transmission).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 14 of the ‘666 Application in view of Boroujeni by requiring that the one PUCCH repetition number for Msg4 is determined based on a configuration of a PUSCH repetition number for Msg3 as taught by Chatterjee because coverage support for MTC user equipment (UE) devices is enhanced by providing physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) transmissions on the uplink (UL) carrying hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) acknowledgement (ACK) feedback with multiple repetitions in response to downlink (DL) transmissions on the DL shared channel or scheduling request (SR) (Chatterjee, ¶5).
Claims 8 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of the copending ‘666 Application in view of Boroujeni in further view of Fakoorian.
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 18.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 14 of the ‘666 Application in view of Boroujeni discloses the apparatus of Claim 11.
However, Claim 14 of the ‘666 Application in view of Boroujeni does not disclose wherein, during operation, the processor is further configured to perform operations comprising: receiving, via the transceiver, a frequency hopping indication which is configured in the SIB or a DCI from the network node, wherein the frequency hopping indication indicates that an intra-slot frequency hopping or an inter-slot frequency hopping is used for each repetition of the PUCCH transmission with HARQ-ACK information or HARQ- NACK information for Msg4; or determining that the intra-slot frequency hopping is used for each repetition of the PUCCH transmission with HARQ-ACK information or HARQ-NACK information for Msg4 in an event that the frequency hopping indication is not configured in the SIB.
Fakoorian, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein, during operation, the processor is further configured to perform operations comprising:
receiving, via the transceiver, a frequency hopping indication which is configured in the SIB or a DCI from the network node (¶36 & Fig. 4 (405), Fakoorian discloses receiving, by the UE, cell-specific PUCCH configuration where the cell-specific PUCCH configuration indicates a frequency hopping type. Examiner correlates cell-specific PUCCH configuration to a DCI), wherein the frequency hopping indication indicates that an intra-slot frequency hopping or an inter-slot frequency hopping is used for each repetition of the PUCCH transmission (¶40 & Fig. 4 (420), Fakoorian discloses that the frequency hopping type indicates that either an inter-slot frequency hopping or an intra-slot frequency hopping is used for repetition of the PUCCH transmission) with HARQ-ACK information or HARQ- NACK information for Msg4 (¶15, Fakoorian discloses that the repetition of the PUCCH transmission is a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) over a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) to acknowledge reception of the Message 4 (MSG4) transmission); or
determining that the intra-slot frequency hopping is used for each repetition of the PUCCH transmission with HARQ-ACK information or HARQ-NACK information for Msg4 in an event that the frequency hopping indication is not configured in the SIB (Examiner notes that the use of “or” and “and/or” has a broadest reasonable interpretation of any element in the list that follows or any of those elements taken together. See Ex Parte Gross, Appeal 2011-004811, Application No. 11/565,411. Thus, Examiner has not treated all limitations separated by “and/or” and “or”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 14 of the ‘666 Application in view of Boroujeni by receiving, via the transceiver, a frequency hopping indication which is configured in the SIB or a DCI from the network node, wherein the frequency hopping indication indicates that an intra-slot frequency hopping or an inter-slot frequency hopping is used for each repetition of the PUCCH transmission with HARQ-ACK information or HARQ- NACK information for Msg4 as taught by Chatterjee because the reliability of HARQ-ACK transmissions to acknowledge Message 4 (MSG4) transmissions is improved (Fakoorian, ¶2).
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC NOWLIN whose telephone number is (313)446-6544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00PM-10:00PM.
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.
/ERIC NOWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2474