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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 03/18/2024 09/13/2023, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The description of several Figures is identical, see page 5 of the specification, Fig. 9 & 10, Fig. 11-14 & 16-20, Fig. 21-22, which is improper. Each Figure needs to be described individually and uniquely, and, the descriptions of Figures may not be identical, they need to be different, from one another.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 6-9, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4, the limitation "FDSS-SE" in line 4, needs to be spelled out. (Claim 4 does not depend on Claim 2).
Claim 6, the limitation " TBoMS" in line 3, needs to be spelled out. (Claim 6 does not depend on Claim 2).
Claim 6, the limitation " FDSS-SE " in line 5, needs to be spelled out. (Claim 6 does not depend on Claim 2).
Claim 7, the limitation " TBoMS" in line 3, needs to be spelled out. (Claim 7 does not depend on Claim 2).
Claim 7, the limitation " FDSS-SE " in line 5, needs to be spelled out. (Claim 7 does not depend on Claim 2).
Claim 8, the limitation " TBoMS" in line 3, needs to be spelled out. (Claim 8 does not depend on Claim 2).
Claim 8, the limitation " FDSS-SE " in line 5, needs to be spelled out. (Claim 8 does not depend on Claim 2).
Claim 9, the limitation " TBoMS" in line 3, needs to be spelled out. (Claim 9 does not depend on Claim 2).
Claim 9, the limitation " FDSS-SE " in line 6, needs to be spelled out. (Claim 9 does not depend on Claim 2).
Claim 17, the limitation "FDSS-SE" in line 4, needs to be spelled out. (Claim 17 does not depend on Claim 15).
Claim 19, the limitation " TBoMS" in line 3, needs to be spelled out. (Claim 19 does not depend on Claim 15).
Claim 19, the limitation " FDSS-SE " in line 5, needs to be spelled out. (Claim 19 does not depend on Claim 15).
Claim 20, the limitation " TBoMS" in line 3, needs to be spelled out. (Claim 20 does not depend on Claim 15).
Claim 20, the limitation " FDSS-SE " in line 5, needs to be spelled out. (Claim 20 does not depend on Claim 15).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nasarre (WO 2022161836 A1) in view of Karmoose (US 20220045789 A1).
Claim 1. Nasarre teaches an apparatus comprising at least one processor, and at least one memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to (page 1:19-22): receive first information indicating a first excess band (page 20: 5-17; Fig. 11:11-3; page 23:27 - 24:4); receive second information indicating a second excess band (Fig. 11:11-5; page 23:20-22, 27 - 24:4); determine a third excess band for one or more multi-slot uplink transmissions, wherein the third excess band is determined based on the first excess band and the second excess band (page 23:20-22); and transmit the one or more multi-slot uplink transmissions over multiple slots with the third excess band (page 23:20-22).
Nasarre does not explicitly teach the combination of the underlined feature, above.
Nasarre does not explicitly teach the combination of these features: multi-slot; multiple slots.
The missing elements are disclosed by Karmoose ([0126] [0169] [0229]).
(AIA ) 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, because: e.g., see Karmoose [0003] - [0006] FIG. 30.
Therefore, the combination of references, discloses the combination of the claimed limitations.
Claim 2. Nasarre in view of Karmoose teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more multi-slot uplink transmissions are transmitted by using the third excess band for frequency-domain spectrum shaping with spectrum extension (FDSS-SE) (page 19: 27-34. In Nasarre) and wherein the one or more multi-slot uplink transmissions comprise at least one of: a transport block over multiple slots (TBoMS) or physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) repetitions ([0229]. In Karmoose).
Compact notation has been utilized above, wherein, when a feature is, partly, attributed to a reference, other than the primary reference, the primary reference does not explicitly disclose the combination of the feature.
The motivation to combine references, is the same as, the parent claim.
Claim 3. Nasarre in view of Karmoose teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the FDSS-SE is used for the TBoMS based on determining that a transport block size of the transport block is larger than a threshold above which code block segmentation occurs ([0170]. In Karmoose).
Compact notation has been utilized above, wherein, when a feature is, partly, attributed to a reference, other than the primary reference, the primary reference does not explicitly disclose the combination of the feature.
The motivation to combine references, is the same as, the parent claim.
Claim 4. Nasarre in view of Karmoose teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, further being caused to: determine a subset of the multiple slots, wherein the subset comprises systematic bits; and use FDSS-SE for the one or more multi-slot uplink transmissions in the subset ([0240] [0310]. In Karmoose).
Compact notation has been utilized above, wherein, when a feature is, partly, attributed to a reference, other than the primary reference, the primary reference does not explicitly disclose the combination of the feature.
The motivation to combine references, is the same as, the parent claim.
Claim 5. Nasarre in view of Karmoose teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, further being caused to: determine whether joint channel estimation is applied over the multiple slots, or whether the apparatus has a constraint associated with using different waveforms in the multiple slots (page 19: 27-34. In Nasarre); and based on determining that the joint channel estimation is applied over the multiple slots or that the apparatus has the constraint, transmit the one or more multi-slot uplink transmissions by using a same waveform in the multiple slots (page 14: 7-15. In Nasarre).
Claim 6. Nasarre in view of Karmoose teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, further being caused to: determine whether the one or more multi-slot uplink transmissions comprise a TBoMS retransmission; and based on determining that the one or more multi-slot uplink transmissions comprise the TBoMS retransmission, use FDSS-SE in the TBoMS retransmission ([0126] [0169] [0229]. In Karmoose).
Compact notation has been utilized above, wherein, when a feature is, partly, attributed to a reference, other than the primary reference, the primary reference does not explicitly disclose the combination of the feature.
The motivation to combine references, is the same as, the parent claim.
Claim 7. Nasarre in view of Karmoose teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, further being caused to: determine whether the one or more multi-slot uplink transmissions comprise an initial TBoMS transmission; and based on determining that the one or more multi-slot uplink transmissions comprise the initial TBoMS transmission, use FDSS-SE in the initial TBoMS transmission ([0126] [0169] [0229]. In Karmoose).
Compact notation has been utilized above, wherein, when a feature is, partly, attributed to a reference, other than the primary reference, the primary reference does not explicitly disclose the combination of the feature.
The motivation to combine references, is the same as, the parent claim.
Claim 8. Nasarre in view of Karmoose teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, further being caused to: determine whether the one or more multi-slot uplink transmissions comprise a TBoMS repetition; based on determining that the one or more multi-slot uplink transmissions comprise the TBoMS repetition, and based on an FDSS-SE mode of the apparatus, determine a waveform for the TBoMS repetition, wherein the FDSS-SE mode indicates whether to use FDSS-SE; and use the waveform and the FDSS-SE mode for transmitting the TBoMS repetition ([0126] [0169] [0229]. In Karmoose).
Compact notation has been utilized above, wherein, when a feature is, partly, attributed to a reference, other than the primary reference, the primary reference does not explicitly disclose the combination of the feature.
The motivation to combine references, is the same as, the parent claim.
Claim 9. Nasarre in view of Karmoose teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, further being caused to: determine whether the one or more multi-slot uplink transmissions comprise a TBoMS transmission on more than one layer; and based on determining that the one or more multi-slot uplink transmissions comprise the TBoMS transmission on the more than one layer, use FDSS-SE in the TBoMS transmission on the more than one layer ([0126] [0229]. In Karmoose).
Compact notation has been utilized above, wherein, when a feature is, partly, attributed to a reference, other than the primary reference, the primary reference does not explicitly disclose the combination of the feature.
The motivation to combine references, is the same as, the parent claim.
Claim 10 is rejected substantially the same as the corresponding Claim 1; with the addition of the Claim being directed at transmit/receive functions that correspond to the receive/transmit functions.
Claim 11 is rejected substantially the same as the corresponding Claim 2.
Claim 12. Nasarre in view of Karmoose teaches the apparatus according to claim 10 (page 20:5-17, 23:20-22. In Nasarre), wherein the second information is for configured grant type 1 (FIG. 20 [0120] [0131] transmission in an OS may depend on the transmitted signals (e.g., PDSCH, PUSCH, PDCCH, PUCCH, RS, etc.) and the scheduling type (e.g., dynamic scheduling, configured grant type 1 or type 2, semi-persistent scheduling, scheduling with repetitions Type A or Type B). [0134] [0222] [0261] [0278]. In Karmoose).
Compact notation has been utilized above, wherein, when a feature is, partly, attributed to a reference, other than the primary reference, the primary reference does not explicitly disclose the combination of the feature.
The motivation to combine references, is the same as, the parent claim.
Claim 13. Nasarre in view of Karmoose teaches the apparatus according to claim 10 (page 20:5-17, 23:20-22. In Nasarre), further being caused to: indicate a row of a time-domain resource allocation table for configured grant type 2 or for a dynamic grant, wherein the row comprises at least one column, wherein the at least one column comprises at least one of the following: the second information or the second excess band or the third excess band (FIG. 20 [0120] [0131] transmission in an OS may depend on the transmitted signals (e.g., PDSCH, PUSCH, PDCCH, PUCCH, RS, etc.) and the scheduling type (e.g., dynamic scheduling, configured grant type 1 or type 2, semi-persistent scheduling, scheduling with repetitions Type A or Type B). [0134] [0222] [0261] [0278]. In Karmoose).
Compact notation has been utilized above, wherein, when a feature is, partly, attributed to a reference, other than the primary reference, the primary reference does not explicitly disclose the combination of the feature.
The motivation to combine references, is the same as, the parent claim.
Claims 14-20 are rejected substantially the same as the corresponding Claims 1-7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and Claims:
Peruga Nasarre (US 20240129170 A1)
Fig. 4-11
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOOMAN HOUSHMAND whose telephone number is (571)270-1817. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 PT.
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 at (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.
/H.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/NATASHA W COSME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465