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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgment is made for the applicant’s response and amendment filed on 01/22/2026.
Remarks
The claims are presented as follows:
Claims are 5-6, 11-12, 14-19, 24-25, 30-31, 33-40, 42-44 and 46 are canceled.
Claims 1-4,7-10,13,20-23,26-29,32,41, and 45 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-4,7-10,13,20-23,26-29,32,41, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan et al. Publication No. (US 2021/0051652 A1) in view of GAO et al. Publication No. (US 2023/0198683 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Khoshnevisan teaches a method for time domain resource assignment, performed by a terminal device (UE 115 FIG.9), comprising:
acquiring a time domain resource assignment (TDRA) table (the UE may receive, from a base station, a DCI message indicating a total TDRA for a set of repetitions of a downlink data transmission [0217-218] FIG.9), wherein the TDRA table comprises a first field, and a second field corresponding to the first field (the base station may indicate an explicit time domain resource allocation (TDRA) for one repetition in the TDRA field of the DCI, and the UE may determine implicit TDRAs for the other repetitions based on the explicit TDRA [0119-120] FIG.5); and
performing time domain resource assignment according to the first field and the second field (the UE 115 may insert ACK/NACK 535 in the codebook 530 at a location corresponding to PDSCH occasion in the last slot 505-b (e.g., as the explicit TDRA 510 is scheduled in PDSCH occasion of slot 505-b). For other PDSCH occasions 525 within the slots 505 that do not correspond to explicit TDRA 510, the UE 115 may insert dummy NACKs 540 for slots 505-a and 505-b and use the HARQ-ACK codebook 530 to transmit feedback information to the base station 105 sending the downlink data repetitions [0120] FIG.5);
Khoshnevisan does not explicitly teach wherein the first field comprises a symbol length occupied by a transmission opportunity, and the second field comprises a total number of transmission opportunities.
GAO teaches wherein the first field comprises a symbol length occupied by a transmission opportunity, and the second field comprises a total number of transmission opportunities (GAO: candidate downlink transmission opportunities in a second time unit on a carrier are determined based on a Start and Length Indicator Values (SLIV) in a TDRA table indicated in the first field of the (TDRA [0062-63] FIG.1) for each first time unit with index n-K1, the quantity of the maximum number of candidate downlink transmission opportunities in a second time unit corresponding to the first time unit with index n-K1; on each of the plurality of carriers [0097-109] FIG.2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Khoshnevisan by the teaching of GAO to specific information set in the first field and second field in the TDRA table in order to improve the transmission performance and efficiency (GAO: [0097-109] FIG.2).
Regarding claim 2, Khoshnevisan teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein performing the time domain resource assignment according to the first field and the second field comprises: acquiring a time domain resource assignment manner; and performing the time domain resource assignment according to the first field, the second field, and the time domain resource assignment manner (the UE 115 may receive an explicit TDRA 510 with a start symbol S=2 and a length L=4, where the explicit TDRA 510 corresponds to the last repetition in the time domain. The UE 115 may determine a nominal implicit TDRA preceding the explicit TDRA 510 that crosses the slot boundary and may split the nominal implicit TDRA into actual implicit TDRAs 515 that do not cross the slot boundary. The set of downlink data repetitions spans slot 505-a and slot 505-b [0119] FIG.5).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Khoshnevisan teaches the method according to claim 2, further comprising: determining a number of effective rows in the TDRA table based on the time domain resource assignment manner; and performing the time domain resource assignment according to the first field, the second field, and the number of effective rows in the TDRA table (GAO: rows in the TDRA table corresponds to an SLIV group with a plurality of SLIVs, and each SLIV in the SLIV group corresponds to each of the plurality of carriers [0022] FIG.2)
Regarding claim 4, Khoshnevisan teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the time domain resource assignment manner is applied to at least one of: a transport block processing over multi-slots (TBoMS) manner; a repetition manner; or a TBoMS with repetition manner (The UE may determine one or more implicit TDRAs based on the explicit TDRA and a number of repetitions [0119-120] FIG.5).
Claims 5-6. (Canceled).
Regarding claim 7, Khoshnevisan teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein acquiring the time domain resource assignment manner comprises: receiving a first configuration signaling; and determining the time domain resource assignment manner based on the first configuration signaling (the UE 115 may receive a DCI message indicating an explicit TDRA 510 and may determine one or more implicit TDRAs 515 based on the explicit TDRA 510 and a number of repetitions [0119-120] FIG.9).
Regarding claim 8, Khoshnevisan teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein the first configuration signaling is a radio resource control (RRC) signaling or a downlink control information (DCI) signaling (the UE 115 may receive a DCI message indicating an explicit TDRA 510 and may determine one or more implicit TDRAs 515 based on the explicit TDRA 510 and a number of repetitions [0119-120] FIG.9).
Regarding claim 9, Khoshnevisan teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein acquiring the time domain resource assignment manner comprises: acquiring configuration information of the terminal device; and determining the time domain resource assignment manner based on the configuration information of the terminal device (the UE 115-b may receive the repetitions of the downlink data transmission based on determining the TDRAs [0135-137] 915-FIG.9).
Regarding claim 10, Khoshnevisan teaches the method according to claim 9, wherein determining the corresponding time domain resource assignment manner based on the configuration information of the terminal device comprises: acquiring a repetition number; and determining the corresponding time domain resource assignment manner based on the configuration information of the terminal device and the repetition number (the UE 115-b may receive the repetitions of the downlink data transmission based on determining the TDRAs [0135-137] 915-FIG.9).
Claims 11-12. (Canceled).
Regarding claim 13, Khoshnevisan teaches the method according to claim 10, wherein acquiring the repetition number comprises: acquiring whether the TDRA table comprises state information of a repetition number field; and determining the repetition number based on the state information (the UE 115-b may determine a set of TDRAs for the set of repetitions of the downlink data transmission based on the total TDRA and the number of repetitions of the downlink data transmission [0136] FIG.9).
Claims 14.-19 and 24-25 (Canceled).
Regarding claims 20-23,26-29, and 32, the independent claim and each dependent claim are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 1-4,7-10, and 13, where the difference used is the limitations were presented from the “base station” side and the wordings of the claims were interchanged within the claim itself or some of the claims were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claims and interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to these claims. Therefore these claims were rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claims 30-31 and 33-40 (Canceled).
Regarding claim 41, related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claim 1, wherein the difference used is the limitations were presented from the “communication device” side with a processor and memory (Khoshnevisan: [0007] FIG.10) and where the difference used is the wordings of the claim were interchanged within the claim itself or were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claim and interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to this claim. Therefore this claim was rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claims 42-44 and 46 (Canceled).
Regarding claim 45, Khoshnevisan teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by a processor of a terminal device, cause the terminal device to perform the method according to claim 1 (An apparatus for wireless communications at a UE is described. The apparatus may include a processor, memory coupled with the processor, and instructions stored in the memory. The instructions may be executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to receive, from a base station, a DCI message indicating an explicit TDRA for a first repetition of a downlink data transmission [0007] FIG.10).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDELNABI O MUSA whose telephone number is (571)270-1901, and email address is abdelnabi.musa@uspto.gov ‘preferred’. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Bates, can be reached on 571-2723980. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/ABDELNABI O MUSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472