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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 2/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-13, and 16-18 are amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after Notice of Allowance on 11/24/2025. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed on 2/23/2026 are entered for prosecution. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
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 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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2024/0314814 A1, hereinafter Lee) in view of Qualcomm Inc. (“PDSCH-TimeDomainResourceAllication List merging issue [Q300] [Q301] [Q302], 3GPP TSG RAN2 REL-17 NR ASN.1 e-ad hoc, R2-2204301, Apr. 20-22, 2022, hereinafter Qualcomm).
Regarding claim 1:
Lee teaches a method performed by a user equipment (UE) (see, Lee: Fig. 9 (a), UE1), the method comprising (see, Lee: Abstract):
receiving, from a base station (see, Lee: Fig. 9, gNB) via higher layer signaling (e.g., RRRC), information (e.g., pdsch-TimeDomainResource Allocation) for a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) time domain resource allocation (e.g., RRC parameter PDSCH-Config comprising pdsch-TimeDomainAllocationList; See Lee: Table 6) (see, Lee, Fig. 9, S901a and para. [0254], “a base station may transmit at least one of i) a common frequency resource (CFR) configuration, ii) one or more group common PDSCH configurations … to the UE through an RRC message (S901a, S901b).”; para. [0261], “Each PDSCH configuration (e.g., RRC parameter PDSCH-config) may include at least information elements (IE) for multicast and/or broadcast as shown in Table 6 below.”).
Lee teaches wherein a first condition associated with a downlink control information (DCI) format 1_2 (e.g., if the field pdsch-TimeDomainAllicationList-1-2 is configured) (see, Lee: Table 7, “If the field pdsch-TimeDomainAllocationListDCI-1-2 is configured, it (the field pdsch-TimeDomainAllocationList (with or without suffix)) applies to DCI format 1_2.”) or a second condition associated with DCI formats 1_0 and 1_1 (e.g., if the field pdsch-TimeDomainAllicationList-1-2 is not configured) (see, Lee: Table 7, “The field pdsch-TimeDomainAllocationList (with or without suffix) applies to DCI format 1_0 and DCI format 1_1, and if the field pdsch-TimeDomainAllocationListDCI-1-2 is not configured, to DCI format 1_2.”).
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein a first repetition number or a second repetition number is conditionally present in the information, based on the first condition or the second condition associated with DCI formats 1_0 and 1_1.
In the same field of endeavor, Qualcomm teaches wherein a first repetition number or a second repetition number is conditionally present in the information (e.g., Qualcomm: repetitionNumber in PDSCH-TimeDomainResourceAllocation in Section 3.1 or repetitionNumber-r16 in Section 3.2), based on a first condition associated with a downlink control information (DCI) format 1_2 or a second condition associated with DCI formats 1_0 and 1_1 (see, Qualcomm: Section 3.1, “In pdsch-TimeDomainAllocation ListDCI-1-2, pdsch-TimeDomainAllocationListForMultiPDSCH, and SIB20, this field is absent. Otherwise, in pdsch-TimeDomainResourceAllocation List-r16 and pdsch-TimeDomainResourceAllocationList-r17, this field is optionally present”, wherein the field indicates PDSCH-TimeDomain ResourceAllocation field including repetitionNumber.).
Accordingly, 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 teachings of Lee in combination of the teachings of Qualcomm in order to support conditional presence of repetitionNumber (see, Qualcomm: Section 3).
Lee in view of Qualcomm further teaches wherein the first condition associated with the DCI format 1_2 (e.g., UE is configured with pdsch-TimeDomainAllicationList-1-2 in format 1_2) is that: the first repetition number is present in the information (e.g., repetitionNumber field in PDSCH-TimeDomainResourceAllocation) based on the information being included in pdsch-TimeDomainAllocationListDCI-1-2 (see, Lee: Table 7, “pdsch-TimeDomainAllocationList, pdsch-TimeDomainAllocationListDCI-1-2 List of time-domain configurations for timing of DL assignment to DL data. … If the field pdsch-TimeDomainAllocationListDCI-1-2 is configured, it (the field pdsch-TimeDomainAllocationList (with or without suffix)) applies to DCI format 1_2.”), and
wherein the second condition associated with the DCI formats 1_0 and 1_1 (e.g., UE is not configured with pdsch-TimeDomainAllication List-1-2 in format 1_2) is that: the second repetition number is present in the information (e.g., repetitionNumber field in PDSCH-TimeDomainResourceAllocation) based on the information being included in pdsch-TimeDomainResource AllocationList-r16 (see, Lee: Table 7, “pdsch-TimeDomainAllocationList, pdsch-TimeDomainAllocationListDCI-1-2 List of time-domain configurations for timing of DL assignment to DL data. The field pdsch-TimeDomainAllocationList (with or without suffix) applies to DCI format 1_0 and DCI format 1_1, and if the field pdsch-TimeDomainAllocationListDCI-1-2 is not configured, to DCI format 1_2.”, wherein the pdsch-TimeDomainAllocationList of Lee in view of Qualcomm (Section 3.2) is equivalent to pdsch-TimeDomainResource AllocationList-r16 of the instant application.).
Lee in view of Qualcomm further teaches wherein receiving, from the base station, a DCI format scheduling a PDSCH (see, Lee, Fig. 9, S903a and para. [0266], “a base station transmits DCI to a UE on a PDCCH (S903a, S903b)”; para. [0269], “The DCI may include the following information (fields).”; para. [0270], “Identifier for DCI format: This information (field) may indicate either an MBS-specific DCI format or one of an existing DCI format for an MBS.”; para. [0271], “Carrier indicator: This information (field) indicates a (serving or MBS specific) cell of a CFR through which a group common PDCCH/PDSCH is transmitted or a serving cell of an active BWP of a UE associated with the CFR.”; para. [0272], “Bandwidth part indicator: This information (field) indicates a BWP ID assigned to a CFR through which a group common PDCCH/PDSCH is transmitted or a BWP ID of an active BWP of a UE associated with the CFR.”; para. [0273], “In addition, the DCI may include information on a frequency domain resource assignment, a time domain resource assignment, a VRB-to-PRB mapping, …”); and
receiving, from the base station, the PDSCH based on the first repetition number or the second repetition number according to the DCI format (see, Lee, Fig. 9, S905a and para. [0266], “the UE can receive PDSCH transmission scheduled by DCI (S905a, S905b)”).
Regarding claim 2:
As discussed above, Lee in view of Qualcomm teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Qualcomm further teaches wherein the first condition associated with the DCI format 1_2 (e.g., UE is configured with pdsch-TimeDomainAllicationList-1-2 in format 1_2) is that: the first repetition number is absent in the information (e.g., repetitionNumber field in PDSCH-TimeDomainResourceAllocation) based on the information being included in other than the pdsch-TimeDomainAllocationListDCI-1-2 (see, Qualcomm: Section 3, “In … pdsch-TimeDomainAllocationListForMulti PDSCH, and SIB20, this field is absent.”).
Regarding claim 3:
As discussed above, Lee in view of Qualcomm teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Qualcomm further teaches wherein, the second condition associated with the DCI formats 1_0 and 1_1 (e.g., UE is not configured with pdsch-TimeDomainAllication List-1-2 in format 1_2) is that: the second repetition number is absent in the information (e.g., repetitionNumber field in PDSCH-TimeDomainResourceAllocation), based on the information being included in pdsch-TimeDomainAllocationListDCI-1-2, pdsch-TimeDomainAllocationListForMulti PDSCH, or SIB20 (see, Qualcomm: Section 3, “In pdsch-TimeDomain AllocationListDCI-1-2, pdsch-TimeDomainAllocationListForMultiPDSCH, and SIB20, this field is absent.”).
Regarding claim 6:
Claim 6 recites the method from the perspective of a base station which corresponds to the method of claim 1, and contains no additional limitations. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected by applying the same rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7:
Claim 7 is directed towards the method of claim 6 that is further limited to similar features to claim 2 from the perspective of the base station of claim 6. Therefore, claim 7 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 8:
Claim 8 is directed towards the method of claim 6 that is further limited to similar features to claim 3 from the perspective of the base station of claim 6. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 11:
Claim 11 is directed towards a user equipment (UE) (see, Lee: Fig. 9, UE1 & UE2; Fig. 13; Fig. 15; and para. [0316]) comprising: a transceiver (see, Lee: Fig. 15, Transceiver(s) 206); and at least one processor (see, Lee: Fig. 15, Processor(s) 202) operably coupled to the transceiver, the at least one processor configured to: perform the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12:
Claim 12 is directed towards the UE of claim 11 that is further limited to similar features to claim 2. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 13:
Claim 13 is directed towards the UE of claim 11 that is further limited to similar features to claim 3. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 is directed towards a base station (see, Lee: Fig. 9, gNB; Fig. 14; Fig. 15; and para. [0316]) comprising: a transceiver (see, Lee: Fig. 15, Transceiver(s) 106); and at least one processor (see, Lee: Fig. 15, Processor(s) 102) operably coupled to the transceiver, the at least one processor configured to: perform the method of claim 6, which corresponds to the similar features of claim 1 from the perspective of the base station with no additional limitations. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 is directed towards the base station of claim 16 that is further limited to similar features to claim 2 from the perspective of the base station of claim 16. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 is directed towards the base station of claim 16 that is further limited to similar features to claim 3 from the perspective of the base station of claim 16. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 3 above.
Claims 4, 9, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Qualcomm further in view of 3GPP TS 38.214 v16.11.0 (3GPP; TSG-RAN; NR; Physical layer procedure for data (Release 16), September 2022, hereinafter TS 38.214).
Regarding claim 4:
As discussed above, Lee in view of Qualcomm teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Lee in view of Qualcomm does not explicitly teach wherein the PDSCH is received based on the first repetition number, in case that the DCI format scheduling the PDSCH corresponds to the DCI format 1_2, and wherein the PDSCH is received based on the second repetition number, in case that the DCI format scheduling the PDSCH corresponds to the DCI format 1_0 or DCI format 1_1.
In the same field of endeavor, TS 38.214 teaches teach wherein the PDSCH is received based on the first repetition number, in case that the DCI format scheduling the PDSCH corresponds to the DCI format 1_2 (see, TS 38.214, page 18, “Table 5.1.2.1.1-1A: Applicable PDSCH time domain resource allocation for DCI format 1_2”, wherein when the PDSCH-Config includes pdsch-TimeDomainAllicationListDCI-1-2, PDSCH time domain resource allocation in pdsch-TimeDomainAllicationListDCI-1-2 is applied. Accordingly, the repetitionNumber in PDSCH-TimeDomainResource Allocation according to Qualcomm is applied.), and wherein the PDSCH is received based on the second repetition number, in case that the DCI format scheduling the PDSCH corresponds to the DCI format 1_0 or DCI format 1_1 (see, TS 38.214, page 17, “Table 5.1.2.1.1-1: Applicable PDSCH time domain resource allocation for DCI formats 1_0 and 1_1”, wherein when the PDSCH-Config includes pdsch-TimeDomainAllicationList, PDSCH time domain resource allocation in pdsch-TimeDomainAllicationList is applied. Accordingly, the repetitionNumber in PDSCH-TimeDomainResource Allocation according to Qualcomm is applied.).
Accordingly, 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 teachings of Lee in view of Qualcomm in combination of the teachings of TS 38.214 in order to determine which PDSCH time domain resource allocation configuration to apply according to DCI formats (see, TS 38.214: pages 17-18).
Regarding claim 9:
Claim 9 is directed towards the method of claim 6 that is further limited to similar features to claim 4 from the perspective of the base station of claim 6. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 14:
Claim 14 is directed towards the UE of claim 11 that is further limited to similar features to claim 4. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 is directed towards the base station of claim 16 that is further limited to similar features to claim 4 from the perspective of the base station of claim 16. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 4 above.
Claims 5, 10, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Qualcomm further in view of Lin et al. (US 2024/0373417 A1, hereinafter Lin).
Regarding claim 5:
As discussed above, Lee in view of Qualcomm teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Lee in view of Qualcomm does not explicitly teach wherein transmitting, to the base station, capability information indicating support of the first repetition number in the information for DCI format 1_2.
In the same field of endeavor, Lin teaches wherein transmitting, to the base station, capability information indicating support of the information for DCI format 1_2 (see, Lin: para. [0219], “UE capability of supporting multiple codeword transmission (or more than a predetermined number of layers e.g. 4 layers) on SPS PDSCH scheduled by DCI 1-2 or a new DCI format different from DCI format 1-0/1-1/1-2 may be separately reported.”).
Although Lin does not specifically describe indicating support of a repetition number in the DCI format 1_2, 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 teachings of Lee in view of Qualcomm in combination of the teachings of Lin in order to report the UE capabilities in support of teachings of Lee in view of Qualcomm for multi-PDSCH transmissions using DCI form 1_2 such that base station (e.g., gNB) can configure PDSCH according to the UE capabilities (see, Lin: para. [0218]). Compliance with 3GPP standards was well known to be necessary for interoperability, efficient communication, and commercial deployment in wireless networks. Implementing the standardized feature would have yielded predictable results, as 3GPP specifications provide detailed and enabling guidance for implementation.
Regarding claim 10:
Claim 10 is directed towards the method of claim 6 that is further limited to similar features to claim 5 from the perspective of the base station of claim 6. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 is directed towards the UE of claim 11 that is further limited to similar features to claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 is directed towards the base station of claim 16 that is further limited to similar features to claim 5 from the perspective of the base station of claim 16. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 5 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JI-HAE YEA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3310. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI, 7am-3pm, ET.
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, SUJOY K KUNDU can be reached on (571) 272-8586. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JI-HAE YEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471