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 .
In response to the election/restriction requirement issued on 11/28/2025, the applicant has elected, without traverse, to have claims 1-9 and 17-22 examined.
The amendment submitted on 01/15/2026 has been received and considered by the examiner. Claims 1 and 17 were amended, Claims 10-16 and 23-30 were cancelled, and Claims 31-44 were newly added.
Priority to provisional application 63,382,248, dated 11/03/2022, is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The term “partial uplink skipping” recited in the claims is interpreted in light of Fig. 4 from the applicant’s disclosure to mean that a subset of resources allocated for uplink transmission are not used.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: it contains a typographical error (“cause the UE: transmit”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, 9, 17, 19, 22, 31, 36-37, 39, 41, and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Löhr et al. (US 2025/0294560 A1, hereinafter “Löhr”).
As to Claim 1, 17, 31, and 39:
Lohr describes a method for a UE to dynamically release uplink resources configured by a grant based on the amount of data the UE needs to transmit.
Specifically, Löhr 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 to cause the UE
Fig. 2 in Löhr and the accompanying description in paragraph 0045 show an example UE including a processor coupled to an instruction memory.
Transmit uplink control information (UCI) that includes an indication for partial uplink skipping on a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) to a network node at a time that is based on a transmission offset from the PUSCH
Paragraphs 0076-0077 of Löhr describe sending “configured grant-uplink control information (CG-UCI)” which indicates “which CG PUSCH resources of a CG PUSCH configuration the UE is not using for uplink transmission” and “an amount of time for which CG resources are not appropriate or used” (Löhr, 0076-0077). Omitting “CG PUSCH resources ... not us[ed] for uplink transmission” is analogous to “partial uplink skipping”, and the “amount of time for which CG resources are not appropriate” corresponds to “a time that is based on a transmission offset from the PUSCH”.
Transmit, to the network node, the partial uplink skipping on the PUSCH
Paragraphs 0076-0077 of Löhr describe “CG resources are not appropriate or used” to transmit a PUSCH, which is analogous to transmission with the claimed “partial uplink skipping”.
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
Paragraph 0084 of Löhr explains that “the operations of the method 500 may be implemented by a device” such as “a base station 102 [in Fig. 1]” (Löhr, 0084). This indicates that the device shown in Fig. 2, which includes a processor coupled to an instruction memory, may be a base station.
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 6, 22, 36, and 44:
Löhr teaches:
Indicate the transmission offset to the network node
Paragraph 0077 of Löhr states that “the CG-UCI may provide pause information related to an amount of time for which CG resources are not appropriate or used”, which is analogous to the “transmission offset” (Löhr, 0077).
The transmission offset includes a maximum duration between a transmission of the UCI and the partial uplink skipping on the PUSCH that is based on application layer information at the UE
As mentioned above, paragraph 0077 of Löhr describes the claimed “transmission offset” separating “CG-UCI” and a “PUSCH”. Also, paragraph 0058 of Löhr describes Fig. 3, which is a high-level summary of the steps Löhr teaches to skip uplink transmission. Löhr specifies that “[m]ethod 300 [in Fig. 3] may only be performed for certain data, such as data that cannot be used by an application if it is late” (Löhr, 0058). Löhr further clarifies that “it is helpful to ensure that data packets are successfully received with associated delay boundaries” because “the application layer may not benefit from packets which are late”, providing clear evidence that the “transmission offset” in Löhr is based on “application layer information”.
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.
As to Claim 7 and 37:
Löhr teaches:
Report, at the UE, a maximum transmission offset associated with the partial uplink skipping on the PUSCH
Paragraph 0077 of Löhr describes a UE reporting “an amount of time for which CG resources are not appropriate or used” for a “PUSCH configuration” (Löhr, 0077).
Claim 37 describes substantially the same subject matter as Claim 7 in the form of a method claim.
As to Claim 9:
Löhr teaches:
At least one transceiver coupled to the at least one processor
Fig. 2 in Lörh shows an example user equipment that includes an “Antenna 216” that is coupled to the “Processor 206”.
Transmit, to the network node and via the at least one transceiver, the partial uplink skipping on the PUSCH
Paragraphs 0076-0077 of Löhr describe “CG resources are not appropriate or used” to transmit a PUSCH, which is analogous to transmission with the claimed “partial uplink skipping”.
As to Claim 19 and 41:
Löhr teaches:
The transmission offset indicates a duration of a gap from a transmission of the UCI to the PUSCH
Löhr describes “an amount of time for which CG resources are not appropriate or used” (Löhr, 0077).
Claim 41 describes substantially the same subject matter as Claim 19 in the form of a method claim.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 18, 32, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Löhr (US 2025/0294560 A1) in view of Su et al. (US 2023/0318798 A1, hereinafter “Su1”).
As to Claim 2, 18, 32, and 40:
Löhr teaches:
The UCI that indicates the partial uplink skipping and the PUSCH
Paragraphs 0076-0077 of Löhr describe a CG-UCI that indicates which “CG resources are not appropriate or used” to transmit a PUSCH, which is analogous to transmission with the claimed “partial uplink skipping”.
Löhr 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 Löhr. 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) 3-5, 8, 21, 33-35, 38, and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Löhr (US 2025/0294560 A1) in view of Su et al. (US 2024/0172287 A1, hereinafter “Su2”).
As to Claim 3 and 33:
Löhr teaches:
The transmission offset is an offset between a first uplink (UL) slot where ... UCI for the partial uplink skipping is transmitted and a second UL slot where PUSCH data is scheduled
Paragraph 0077 of Löhr describes a “CG-UCI” that includes “information about how long the UE is not using ... CG PUSCH resources”. In other words, the offset in Löhr separates UCI from the next PUSCH transmission.
Löhr does not explicitly disclose:
A PUCCH carrying the UCI
However, Su2 does describe a method for deconflicting slots for uplink transmission.
Specifically, Su2 teaches:
A PUCCH carrying the UCI
Su2 describes “UCI (Uplink Control Information)” that “is multiplexed in a PUCCH” (Su2, 0194).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to send the UCI described in Löhr using a PUCCH, as taught in Su2. The purpose of the PUCCH is to send uplink control information, making it an obvious choice to carry UCI.
Claim 33 describes substantially the same subject matter as Claim 3 in the form of a method claim.
As to Claim 4 and 34:
Löhr does not explicitly disclose:
Receive 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 PUSCH
However, from this list, Su2 does teach:
Receive the transmission offset via at least one of a radio resource control (RRC message, [or] a medium access control-control element (MAC-CE)
Su2 describes “[t]hree types of SRS configuration” that “are supported in NR”. The first is “RRC configured and activated” including a “slot offset”, and the second is “RRC configured, MAC activated/deactivated” and also includes a slot offset” (Su, 0196-0203).
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 Löhr’s method for indicating unused uplink resources. The slot offset in Su2 indicates a slot a user equipment should not use, similar to the unused PUCCH resource described in Löhr.
Claim 34 describes substantially the same subject matter as Claim 4 in the form of a method claim.
As to Claim 5, 21, 35, and 43:
Löhr teaches:
The PUSCH is scheduled as a configured grant (CG)
Paragraph 0077 of Löhr describes a “CG-UCI” that “may include information about how long the UE is not using ... CG PUSCH resources of a CG PUSCH configuration” (Löhr, 0077).
Löhr does not explicitly disclose:
Receive the transmission offset in at least one of:
A radio resource control (RRC) message configuring the CG for the PUSCH
A medium access control-control element (MAC-CE), or
Downlink Control Information (DCI) activating the CG for the PUSCH
However, from this list, Su2 does teach:
A radio resource control (RRC) message
Su2 describes “[t]here types of SRS configuration”, including “Periodic SRS, RRC configured and activated” (Su2, 0196-0203).
Receive the transmission offset in ... A medium access control-control element (MAC-CE)
Su2 describes “[t]here types of SRS configuration”, including “Semi-persistent, RRC configured, MAC activated/deactivated” configurations including a “slot offset” (Su2, 0196-0203).
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 Löhr’s method for indicating unused uplink resources. The slot offset in Su2 indicates a slot a user equipment should not use, similar to the unused PUCCH resource described in Löhr.
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.
As to Claim 8 and 38:
Löhr teaches:
The UCI that indicates the partial uplink skipping and another UCI associated with a configured grant (CG) on another PUSCH
Löhr describes “one or more CG configurations” that are associated with “CG PUSCH resources” (Löhr, 0075, 0077). Also, MPEP 2144.04 VI B lists “duplication of parts” as an example criterion of obviousness, meaning the presence of one CG PUSCH renders obvious multiple CGs that each configure a PUSCH.
Löhr 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 teach:
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 Löhr’s method for indicating unused uplink resources. The slot offset in Su2 indicates a slot a user equipment should not use, similar to the unused PUCCH resource described in Löhr.
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 Löhr (US 2025/0294560 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 2023/0292310 A1, hereinafter “Li”).
As to Claim 20 and 42:
Löhr 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 Löhr 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
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 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.
/B.P.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2477
/CHIRAG G SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2477