DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's response filed on 02/02/2026 has been entered and made of record.
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 .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 8 and 17 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 10, 11, 15, and 16 are amended.
No new claims are added.
Claims 1-7, 10-16, and 18 are currently pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Remarks (on page 9), filed 02/02/2026, regarding Objection to the Specification have been fully considered and the Abstract has been amended. The Objection to Specification has been withdrawn in view of the amendment made to the Abstract.
Applicant's Remarks (on page 9), filed 02/02/2026, regarding Claim Objections have been fully considered and claims 10, 11, 15, and 16 have been amended. The Objections to Claims 10, 11, 15, and 16 have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant has argued that, “Sun at least fails to disclose, teach or suggest “preparing a multiple-slot transport block (TB) for transmission, wherein the TB is to be transmitted using resources indicated in a configured grant (CG)” and “determining a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) identifier for the TB based on a slot associated with the multiple-slot TB” as recited in amended claim 1. Particular embodiments enable the HARQ operation for multi-slot TB transmission, including HARQ ID determination and HARQ related configured grant (CG) timer configuration. Claim 1 is amended above to clarify that the TB is to be transmitted via a configured grant (i.e., no DCI available). Thus, the wireless device in claim 1 determines the HARQ process ID without the benefit of a DCI, as disclosed in Sun. There is no disclosure in Sun that the UE is able to determine a HARQ identifier without the benefit of a DCI that specifically provides the HARQ identifier to the UE.” (see Remarks on page 10-11).
In response to the Applicant's arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because upon careful consideration, the claim simply recites “wherein the TB is to be transmitted using resources indicated in a configured grant (CG)” and there is no recitation of “the wireless device determines the HARQ process ID without the benefit of a DCI and the UE is able to determine a HARQ identifier without the benefit of a DCI that specifically provides the HARQ identifier to the UE” nor there is a relationship for determination between HARQ process ID and DCI.
In light of the published specification, ¶ ¶ [0066] [0073] recite as follow:
[0066] In a first group of embodiments, the HARQ process ID for multi-slot TB transmission is determined based on one or more of the following. In some embodiments, the slot number of a predetermined slot among the set of slots used for the single TB transmission (e.g., the slot number of the first slot for the transmission of the multi-slot TB or the slot number of the last slot for the transmission of the multi-slot TB). Some embodiments may use a slot number that is configured by RRC/MAC PDU or layer 1 signaling in DCI.
[0073] …It may be a slot index that is configured by RRC/MAC PDU or layer 1 signaling in DCI. In some embodiments, the slot index is the slot with a slot number that is used for HARQ ID determination. (Emphasis Added).
In view of the above, the specification teaches that a slot number or index that is used for HARQ ID determination for multi-slot TB transmission is configured by either RRC/MAC PDU or layer 1 signaling in DCI. The Applicant appears to ignore its own specification that the HARQ process ID for multi-slot TB transmission is configured by layer 1 signaling in DCI. The argument related to the wireless device in claim 1 determines the HARQ process ID without the benefit of a DCI is contradicted based on this instant specification.
Based on this above analysis, Sun teaches that a receiving UE, may receive, a signaling message from a transmitter such as a transmitting base station, to configure a flexible TB. Included in the signaling message are a HARQ ID and a code block group transmission indicator (CGBTI) field (see ¶ [0070]) wherein the signaling message may include an indication of slot aggregation for the flexible TB. The signaling message is a radio resource control (RRC) message (see ¶ [0102]) and the receiving UE may determine an actual TB size (TBS) of the TB indicated in the received signaling message. If a TB is limited within a slot, determining the TBS may be based on the available resource in the granted slot (see ¶ [0062]). If the prior art, Sun, is capable of teaching the same functionalities, then it meets the claim. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., (a) HARQ related configured grant (CG) timer configuration… (b) the HARQ process ID without the benefit of a DCI… and (c) the UE is able to determine a HARQ identifier without the benefit of a DCI that specifically provides the HARQ identifier to the UE) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
This Office action is made Final.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the TB” in line 3 and line 5 respectively. In order to avoid antecedent basis, it is suggested to amend “the TB” to -- the multiple-slot TB -- assuming both limitations are the same.
Claim 10 recites “the TB” in line 4 and line 6 respectively. In order to avoid antecedent basis, it is suggested to amend “the TB” to -- the multiple-slot TB -- assuming both limitations are the same.
Appropriate corrections are 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 10-14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SUN et al. (US 2019/0297642 A1) hereinafter “Sun”. The U.S. reference, Sun, was cited in IDS filed 09/18/2023.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Sun discloses Claim 1 of a method performed by a wireless device (see FIG. 10; see ¶ [0094], an apparatus/wireless device), and Claim 10 of a wireless device comprising: processing circuitry and a memory storing instruction (see FIG. 10; see ¶ [0094], an apparatus/wireless device including processors and memory), the method comprising:
preparing a multiple-slot transport block (TB) for transmission (see FIG. 5, each TB contains three slots; see ¶ [0065], the slot aggregation includes four slot aggregations 502, 504, 506, and 508), wherein the TB is to be transmitted using resources indicated in a configured grant (CG) (see ¶ [0085], determining the TBS may be based on the available resource in the received grant for transmission; see ¶ [0102], the signaling message may include an indication of slot aggregation for the flexible TB where the signaling message is a radio resource control (RRC) message; and see Claim 4, the signaling message comprises a grant for each of the one or more slots)
determining a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) identifier for the TD based on a slot associated with the multiple-slot TB (see FIG. 5; see ¶ [0070] [0101-02], to configure a flexible TB. Included in the signaling message are a HARQ ID and CBGTI field and the signaling message may include one or more HARQ process IDs and an indication of slot aggregation for the flexible TB where the signaling message is a radio resource control (RRC) message); and
transmitting the multiple-slot TB using a HARQ process associated with the determined HARQ identifier (see FIG. 5, TxOP; see ¶ [0065], the aggregation 502 for transport block 0 includes a HARQ process ID 0, a starting point of symbol #2 within slot 0 and ending point of symbol #11 of slot 2. Each of the four slot aggregations, 502, 504, 506, and 508, is for one TB, i.e., TB0 through TB3 respectively, thus TB0 occupying three slots is transmitted).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Sun discloses wherein determining the HARQ identifier comprises determining the HARQ identifier based on a predetermined slot of the slots associated with the multiple-slot TB (see FIG. 5, TxOP; see ¶ [0065], the aggregation 502 for transport block 0 includes a HARQ process ID 0, a starting point of symbol #2 within slot 0 and ending point of symbol #11 of slot 2).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Sun discloses wherein the predetermined slot comprises a first slot of the slots associated with the multiple-slot TB (see FIG. 5, TxOP; see ¶ [0065], the aggregation 502 for transport block 0 includes a HARQ process ID 0, a starting point of symbol #2 within slot 0 and ending point of symbol #11 of slot 2).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Sun discloses wherein the predetermined slot comprises a last slot of the slots associated with the multiple-slot TB (see FIG. 5, TxOP; see ¶ [0065], the aggregation 502 for transport block 0 includes a HARQ process ID 0, a starting point of symbol #2 within slot 0 and ending point of symbol #11 of slot 2).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Sun discloses wherein the predetermined slot comprises a slot preconfigured by a network node (see FIG. 5; see ¶ [0102], the signaling message may include an indication of slot aggregation for the flexible TB and is a radio resource control (RRC) message and may configure a fixed time slots for aggregation).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Sun discloses further comprising determining a symbol number based on a slot associated with the multiple-slot TB (see FIG. 5; see ¶ [0065], For example, the aggregation 502 for transport block 0 includes a HARQ process ID 0, a starting point of symbol #2 within slot 0 and ending point of symbol #11 of slot 2).
Regarding claim 18, Sun discloses wherein a multiple-slot TB transmission duration is restricted to one configured grant period (see ¶ [0077], and see Claim 5, the signaling message comprises a CBG transmission index (CBGTI) indicating which subset of the CBGs is included in the flexible TB for a new transmission or retransmission).
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of SRIDHARAN et al. (US 2022/0287039 A1) hereinafter “Sridharan”.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Sun does not explicitly disclose a system frame number (SFN).
However, Sridharan discloses further comprising determining a system frame number (SFN) based on a slot associated with the multiple-slot TB (see FIG. 9; see ¶ [0089], the slots (slots 0, 1, and 2) may be aligned and/or synchronized with a timing reference such as a particular system frame number indicated by an SSB).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide a system frame number (SFN) as taught by Sridharan, in the system of Sun, so that it would provide to enable channel estimation for a multi-slot TB, which may provide desirable uplink performance such as desirable data rate, desirable latency (Sridharan: see ¶ [0031]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am to 5:00pm.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571) 272-3927. 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.
/PETER CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462