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 amendment submitted on 06/04/2026 has been received and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, 17-22, 31-32, 34-37, and 39-44 were amended, and claims 10-16 and 23-30 were previously cancelled. Claims 1-9, 17-22, and 31-44 remain pending.
The objection to Claim 1 is withdrawn because the amendment removed the corresponding typographical error.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10, 17-22, and 31-44 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: it contains an apparent typo (“the the PUSCH transmission”). Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 37 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. The prior art does not teach “report[ing], at the UE, a maximum transmission offset between the indication of the partial uplink skipping and the PUSCH transmission” in combination with the other limitations of dependent claims 7 and 37.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 9, 17, 19, 31, 33, 39, and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al. (US 2025/0393096 A1, hereinafter “Deng”) in view of Cheng et al. (US 2019/0261195 A1, hereinafter “Cheng”).
As to Claims 1, 17, 31, and 39:
Deng describes a method for a UE to send UCI indicating that parts of a semi-persistently scheduled transmission can be skipped.
Specifically, Deng teaches:
A memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the memory, the at least one processor is configured
Deng describes a UE “including a processor configured to call and run program instructions stored in a memory, to execute the method” (Deng, 0022).
Transmit uplink control information (UCI) that includes an indication for partial uplink skipping for an occasion of uplink resources of a physical uplink shared channel transmission to a network node in a first portion of resources for the occasion and skipping transmission in a second portion of the resources for the occasion
Deng describes a “UCI piggyback by PUSCH [sic]” that “can be used to indicate whether ... a part of CG/SPS can be skipped or not” (Deng, 0118).
The UCI with the indication of the partial uplink skipping
Again, the “UCI piggyback by PUSCH can be used to indicate whether ... a part of CG/SPS can be skipped or not” (Deng, 0118).
Transmit, to the network node, the PUSCH transmission with the partial uplink skipping
Deng describes a “UCI piggyback by PUSCH [sic]” that “can be used to indicate whether ... a part of CG/SPS can be skipped or not” (Deng, 0118).
Deng also does not explicitly disclose:
The UCI ... is transmitted at a time that is based on a transmission offset from the PUSCH transmission
However, Cheng does describe a beam switching method that includes a time offset between a PUCCH carrying a UCI and a subsequent PUSCH transmission.
Specifically, Cheng teaches:
The UCI ... is transmitted at a time that is based on a transmission offset from the PUSCH transmission
Cheng describes a “time offset between the configured PUCCH and the configured PUSCH”, and the PUSCH carries “Uplink Control Information (UCI)” unless “the time offset between the configured PUCCH and the configured PUSCH is less than the transition gap indicated by the BS” (Cheng, 0091).
Here, the “time offset between the configured PUCCH and the configured PUSCH” maps to “a transmission offset from the PUSCH transmission”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to schedule the PUSCH transmission in Deng based on a predetermined time gap relative to the DCI, as described in Cheng. This time gap allows the UE to determine if the transmission is feasible or if it the UE needs to modify it, e.g. by piggybacking the UCI on a PUSCH (see, for example, Cheng 0090-0091).
Claim 17 describes the same method from the perspective of a network device, requiring:
A network node, comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory
Deng describes a BS “including a processor configured to call and run program instructions stored in a memory, to execute the method” (Deng, 0023).
Claim 31 describes substantially the same subject matter as Claim 1 as a method claim.
Claim 39 describes substantially the same subject matter as Claim 17 as a method claim.
As to Claim 3 and 33:
Deng teaches:
The UCI for the partial uplink skipping
Deng describes “UCI piggyback by PUSCH [sic]” which “can be used to indicate whether ... a part of CG/SPS can be skipped or not” (Deng, 0118).
Deng does not explicitly disclose:
The transmission offset is an offset between a first uplink (UL) slot where a PUCCH ... is transmitted and a second UL slot where PUSCH data is scheduled
However, Cheng does teach:
The transmission offset is an offset between a first uplink (UL) slot where a PUCCH ... is transmitted and a second UL slot where PUSCH data is scheduled
Cheng describes a “time offset between the configured PUCCH and the configured PUSCH”, and the PUSCH carries “Uplink Control Information (UCI)” unless “the time offset between the configured PUCCH and the configured PUSCH is less than the transition gap indicated by the BS” (Cheng, 0091).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to schedule the PUSCH transmission in Deng based on a predetermined time gap relative to the DCI, as described in Cheng. This time gap allows the UE to determine if the transmission is feasible or if it the UE needs to modify it, e.g. by piggybacking the UCI on a PUSCH (see, for example, Cheng 0090-0091).
Claim 33 describes the same subject matter as Claim 3 in the form of a method claim.
As to Claim 9:
Deng teaches:
At least one transceiver coupled to the at least one processor
Fig. 1 in Deng shows a “Processor 11” coupled to a “Transceiver 13” in the “User Equipment 10”.
To transmit, to the network node, the the PUSCH transmission [sic], the at least one processor is configured to transmit, to the network node and via the at least one transceiver, the PUSCH transmission
Deng describes a “UCI piggyback by PUSCH [sic]” that “can be used to indicate whether ... a part of CG/SPS can be skipped or not” (Deng, 0118).
As to Claims 19 and 41:
Deng teaches:
The PUSCH transmission with the partial uplink skipping
Deng describes a “UCI piggyback by PUSCH [sic]” that “can be used to indicate whether ... a part of CG/SPS can be skipped or not” (Deng, 0118).
Deng does not explicitly disclose:
The transmission offset indicates a duration of a gap from a transmission of the UCI to the PUSCH
However, Cheng teaches:
The transmission offset indicates a duration of a gap from a transmission of the UCI to the PUSCH
Cheng describes a “time offset between the configured PUCCH and the configured PUSCH”, and the PUSCH carries “Uplink Control Information (UCI)” unless “the time offset between the configured PUCCH and the configured PUSCH is less than the transition gap indicated by the BS” (Cheng, 0091).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to schedule the PUSCH transmission in Deng based on a predetermined time gap relative to the DCI, as described in Cheng. This time gap allows the UE to determine if the transmission is feasible or if it the UE needs to modify it, e.g. by piggybacking the UCI on a PUSCH (see, for example, Cheng 0090-0091).
Claim 41 describes substantially the same subject matter as Claim 19 in the form of a method claim.
Claim(s) 2, 18, 32, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (US 2025/0393096 A1) in view of Cheng (US 2019/0261195 A1) and further in view of Su et al. (US 2023/0318798 A1, hereinafter “Su1”).
As to Claim 2, 18, 32, and 40:
Deng teaches:
The UCI that indicates the partial uplink skipping and the PUSCH
Again, the “UCI piggyback by PUSCH can be used to indicate whether ... a part of CG/SPS can be skipped or not” (Deng, 0118).
The combination of Deng and Cheng does not explicitly disclose:
The transmission offset indicates a range with a minimum duration and a maximum duration between ... the PUSCH
However, Su1 does describe a method for allocating duplex resources to a user equipment.
Specifically, Su1 teaches:
The transmission offset indicates a range with a minimum duration and a maximum duration between ... the PUSCH
Su1 describes “acquiring by the first node information including at least one of the following: an uplink minimum scheduling delay ... [and] an uplink maximum scheduling delay” for “a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH)” (Su1, 0013).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the minimum and maximum scheduling delays described in Su1 to the partial uplink skipping scenario outlined in Deng. Requiring the PUSCH to be sent within a certain temporal range helps both devices to better understand when those PUSCH resources need to be free and available.
Claim 18 describes the same method as Claim 2 from the perspective of the network device.
Claim 32 describes substantially the same subject matter as Claim 2 in the form of a method claim.
Claim 40 describes substantially the same subject matter as Claim 18 in the form of a method claim.
Claim(s) 4-5, 21, 34-35, and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (US 2025/0393096 A1) in view of Cheng (US 2019/0261195 A1) and further in view of Rastegardoost et al. (US 2023/0023656 A1, hereinafter “Rastegardoost”).
As to Claims 4 and 34:
The combination of Deng and Cheng does not explicitly disclose:
Receive a transmission offset indication that indicates the transmission offset via at least one of a radio resource control (RRC) message, a medium access control-control element (MAC-CE), or downlink control information (DCI) with a dynamic grant (DG) scheduling the occasion for the PUSCH transmission
However, Rastegardoost does describe configuring a slot offset using DCI.
Specifically, from this list, Rastegardoost at least teaches:
Receive a transmission offset indication that indicates the transmission offset ... downlink control information (DCI) with a dynamic grant (DG) scheduling the occasion for the PUSCH transmission
Rastegardoost teaches that “[t]he wireless device determines slot n”, the slot for transmission, “based on the slot offset, K2, in the UL DCI, and transmits a UCI comprising the pending HARQ-ACK via the PUSCH scheduled by the UL DCI in slot n” (Rastegardoost, 0329). Rastegardoost also clarifies that a the UL DCI schedules a “DG PUSCH” (Rastegardoost, 0338).
Here, “UL DCI” that includes a “DG PUSCH” corresponds to “downlink control information (DCI) with a dynamic grant (DG)”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to schedule the transmission offset in Cheng using the UL DCI described in Rastegardoost. The UL DCI allows the base station to know deterministically when to expect a corresponding PUSCH transmission from the UE.
Claim 34 describes substantially the same subject matter as Claim 4 in the form of a method claim.
As to Claims 5, 21, 35, and 43:
Deng teaches:
Receive a configured grant (CG), wherein the PUSCH transmission is transmitted in partial resources of a CG occasion based on the CG
Deng describes a “UCI piggyback by PUSCH [sic]” that “can be used to indicate whether ... a part of CG/SPS can be skipped or not” (Deng, 0118).
Here, the “CG” corresponds to “a configured grant (CG)”, and
“UCI” that is “piggyback[ing]” on the “PUSCH” corresponds to “the PUSCH transmission is transmitted in partial resources of a CG occasion based on the CG”.
The combination of Deng and Cheng does not explicitly disclose:
Receive the transmission offset in at least one of:
A radio resource control (RRC) message configuring the CG for a PUSCH,
A medium access control-control element (MAC-CE), or
Downlink control information (DCI) activating the CG for the PUSCH
However, from this list, Rastegardoost does at least teach:
Receive the transmission offset in at least one of ... downlink control information (DCI) activating the CG for the PUSCH
Rastegardoost teaches that “[t]he wireless device determines slot n”, the slot for transmission, “based on the slot offset, K2, in the UL DCI, and transmits a UCI comprising the pending HARQ-ACK via the PUSCH scheduled by the UL DCI in slot n” (Rastegardoost, 0329). Rastegardoost also clarifies that “[t]he wireless device may receive a DCI activating the one or more configured grants” (Rastegardoost, 0336).
Here, the “UL DCI” including “the slot offset, K2” that also “activat[es] the one or more configured grants” corresponds to “receiv[ing] the transmission offset in at least one of ... downlink control information (DCI) activating the CG for the PUSCH”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to schedule the transmission offset in Cheng using the UL DCI described in Rastegardoost. The UL DCI allows the base station to know deterministically when to expect a corresponding PUSCH transmission from the UE.
Claim 21 describes the same method as Claim 5 from the perspective of the network device.
Claim 35 describes substantially the same subject matter as Claim 5 in the form of a method claim.
Claim 43 describes substantially the same subject matter as Claim 43 in the form of a method claim.
Claim(s) 6, 22, 36, and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (US 2025/0393096 A1) in view of Cheng (US 2019/0261195 A1) and further in view of He et al. (US 2023/0388170 A1, hereinafter “He”).
As to Claims 6, 22, 36, and 44:
Deng teaches:
The PUSCH transmission with the partial uplink skipping
Deng describes a “UCI piggyback by PUSCH [sic]” that “can be used to indicate whether ... a part of CG/SPS can be skipped or not” (Deng, 0118).
Deng does not explicitly disclose:
The transmission offset includes a maximum duration between a transmission of the UCI and the PUSCH transmission
However, Cheng does teach:
The transmission offset includes a maximum duration between a transmission of the UCI and the PUSCH transmission
Cheng describes a “time offset between the configured PUCCH and the configured PUSCH”, and the PUSCH carries “Uplink Control Information (UCI)” unless “the time offset between the configured PUCCH and the configured PUSCH is less than the transition gap indicated by the BS” (Cheng, 0091).
Here, the “time offset between the configured PUCCH and the configured PUSCH” corresponds to “a maximum duration between a transmission of the UCI and the PUSCH transmission” because the “time offset” is the largest possible value, making it the “maximum duration”.
The combination of Deng and Cheng does not explicitly disclose:
Indicate the transmission offset to the network node
The transmission offset ... is based on application layer information at the UE
However, He does describe a method for a UE to determine a minimum slot offset value.
Specifically, He teaches:
Indicate the transmission offset to the network node
He teaches that “the terminal device may determine the minimum slot offset value, and report the minimum slot offset value to the network device” (He, 0008).
The transmission offset ... is based on application layer information at the UE
He teaches that “the terminal device determines a minimum slot offset value” based on “a quantity of uplink and downlink packets transmitted at the application layer per second” (He, 0013).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply He’s practice of basing the slot offset on the rate of data transmission from the application layer to the slot offset in Cheng used to schedule PUSCH transmission. As seen in paragraph 0013 of He, the rate of data transfer from the application layer can determine the appropriate data transfer rate.
Claim 22 describes the same method as Claim 6 from the perspective of the network device.
Claim 36 describes substantially the same subject matter as Claim 6 in the form of a method claim.
Claim 44 describes substantially the same subject matter as Claim 22 in the form of a method claim.
Claim(s) 8 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (US 2025/0393096 A1) in view of Cheng (US 2019/0261195 A1) and further in view of Su et al. (US 2024/0172287 A1, hereinafter “Su2”).
As to Claims 8 and 38:
Deng teaches:
The UCI that indicates the partial uplink skipping
Deng describes a “UCI piggyback by PUSCH [sic]” that “can be used to indicate whether ... a part of CG/SPS can be skipped or not” (Deng, 0118).
Another UCI associated with a configured grant (CG) on another PUSCH
Deng describes a “UCI” that is “piggybacked on CG PUSCH” (Deng, 0059).
The combination of Deng and Cheng does not explicitly disclose:
Detect a collision between the UCI
Mitigate the collision
Drop, skip, or delay the UCI that indicates the partial uplink skipping or the another UCI associated with the CG on the another PUSCH based at least on a lower priority therebetween; or multiplex the UCI with the another UCI
However, Su2 does describe a method for deconflicting slots for uplink transmission.
Specifically, Su2 teaches:
Detect a collision between the UCI
Su2 describes detecting a collision between a PUSCH and a SRS, stating, “the SRS is dropped in the symbols where the collision occurs” (Su2, 0207).
Mitigate the collision
Su2 describes detecting a collision between a PUSCH and a SRS, stating, “the SRS is dropped in the symbols where the collision occurs” (Su2, 0207). Dropping these symbols is a form of “mitigation”.
And from the list of:
Drop, skip, or delay the UCI that indicates the partial uplink skipping or the another UCI associated with the CG on the another PUSCH based at least on a lower priority therebetween; or multiplex the UCI with the another UCI
Su2 at least teaches:
Drop, skip, or delay ... based at least on a lower priority therebetween
Su2 describes “a PUSCH with a priority index 0 and SRS” that “are transmitted in the same slot” (Su2, 0209). Su further elaborates that “the SRS is dropped in the symbols where the collision occurs” based on the “PUSCH with a priority index 0” (Su2, 0209, 0211).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Su2’s practice of sending a downlink configuration of a slot offset into Deng’s method for canceling part of an uplink transmission. The slot offset in Su2 indicates a slot a user equipment should not use, similar to the unused PUCCH resource described in Deng.
Claim 38 describes substantially the same subject matter as Claim 8 in the form of a method claim.
Claim(s) 20 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (US 2025/0393096 A1) in view of Cheng (US 2019/0261195 A1) and further in view of Li et al. (US 2023/0292310 A1, hereinafter “Li”).
As to Claim 20 and 42:
The combination of Deng and Cheng does not explicitly disclose:
Provide downlink control information (DCI) with a dynamic grant (DG) that schedules the PUSCH and indicates the transmission offset
However, Li does describe different methods to schedule PUSCH transmissions using configured grants (CGs) and dynamic grants (DGs).
Specifically, Li teaches:
Provide downlink control information (DCI) with a dynamic grant (DG) that schedules the PUSCH and indicates the transmission offset
Paragraph 0093 of Li describes “DCI” that schedules a “DG PUSCH” with a “scheduling offset” (Li, 0093).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to schedule the PUSCH in Deng using DCI including a dynamic grant, as taught in Li. Dynamic grants are a common mechanism for scheduling PUSCH transmissions, so it would be obvious to use them for this.
Claim 42 describes substantially the same subject matter as Claim 20 in the form of a method claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Malhotra et al. (US 2026/0107186 A1) describes a UE cancelling a subset of CSI reporting transmissions on a PUSCH.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin Peter Welte whose telephone number is (703)756-5965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 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, Chirag G Shah can be reached at (571) 272-3144. 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.
BENJAMIN PETER WELTE
Examiner
Art Unit 2477
/GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights