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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/16/25 and 12/28/23 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 19, 27, 29, filed 1/30/26, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7-9 of the applicant’s response, the applicant argues that the cited portions of Davydov does not teach “receive a downlink control information(DCI) that schedules multiple physical uplink shared channels (PUSCHs) and indicates whether each of the PUSCHs is scheduled as a single transmission points (S-TRP) or multiple (M-TRP)” .
Regarding the arguments above, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. Davydov [0028] teaches that a DCI is received that schedules multiple PUSCH. These are taught with repetitions of PUSCH. In the cited/mapped example of the examiner, multiple repetitions of a multi-TRP mode. Here [0028-0029], the DCI indicates that each of the two repetitions are scheduled as a multiple (M-TRP). The first repetition is part of a m-TRP mode and the second repetition is as well. Therefore, as the claim language reads, Davydov does teach the argued limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1,2, 5-7, 15, 19-20, 22-25, 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Davydov et al (Pub No: 2024/0187172).
As to claim 1, Davydov teaches an apparatus for wireless communications by a user equipment (UE) (Davydov, [0028], a UE) , comprising: at least one processor and a memory configured (Davydov, [0075], a processor and memory) to:
receive a downlink control information (DCI) (Davydov, [0028], a UE receives DCI from a TRP) that schedules multiple physical uplink shared channels (PUSCHs) (Davydov, [0015][0016], the DCI schedules multiple PUSCH (repetitions)) and indicates whether each of the PUSCHs is scheduled as a single transmission reception points (S-TRP) or multiple TRP (M-TRP) transmission (Davydov, [0028] [0029], indicate that each repetition operates under the multi-TRP mode); and
transmit each of the PUSCHs to one or more of the TRPs in accordance with information indicated in the DCI (Davydov, Fig 3 [0028], 315 transmit the first and second PUSCH to the multiple TRP as indicated in the DCI received).
As to claim 2, Davydov teaches wherein the DCI comprises one or more bits that indicate whether the PUSCHs are S-TRP or M-TRP transmissions (Davydov, [0025], 2 bits in the DCI to indicate the PUSCH is sTRP or mTRP).
As to claim 5, Davydov teaches wherein the DCI indicates at least one of: one or more sounding reference signal (SRS) resource indicators (SRIs) (Davydov, [0023], the DCI indicates one or more SRI fields).
As to claim 6, Davydov teaches wherein the one or more TI states or one or more SRIs are applied to all scheduled PUSCH transmissions (Davydov, Table 3 SRI applied to all Tx PUSCH).
As to claim 7, Davydov teaches wherein: all PUSCH transmissions are associated with a same TRP (Davydov, [0028] [0029] Fig 1, the PUSCH transmissions in sTRP and mTRP are associated with TRP 1); and the DCI indicates a single SRI applied to all scheduled PUSCH transmissions (Davydov, Table 3 SRI applied to all Tx PUSCH).
As to claim 15, Davydov teaches wherein the DCI indicates at least one of: a transmission power control (TPC) command indicated per PUSCH or common to all the PUSCHs (Davydov, Table 1-3, a power control indication for transmitting the PUSCHs).
As to claim 19, Davydov teaches an apparatus for wireless communications by a network entity, comprising: at least one processor and a memory configured (Davydov, Fig 1, a TRP with processor and memory) to:
transmit, to a user equipment (UE), a downlink control information (DCI) (Davydov, [0028], a UE receives DCI from a TRP) that schedules multiple physical uplink shared channels (PUSCHs) (Davydov, [0015][0016], the DCI schedules multiple PUSCH (repetitions)) and indicates whether each of the PUSCHs is scheduled as a single transmission reception points (S-TRP) or multiple TRP (M-TRP) transmission (Davydov, [0028] [0029], indicate that each repetition operates under the multi-TRP mode) ; and receive each of the PUSCHs, via one or more of the TRPs, in accordance with information indicated in the DCI (Davydov, Fig 3 [0028], 315 receives the first and second PUSCH to the multiple TRP as indicated in the DCI).
As to claim 20, Davydov teaches wherein the DCI comprises one or more bits that indicate whether the PUSCHs are S-TRP or M-TRP transmissions (Davydov, [0025], 2 bits in the DCI to indicate the PUSCH is sTRP or mTRP).
As to claim 22, Davydov teaches wherein the one or more bits indicate whether all PUSCHs are S-TRP or all PUSCHs are M-TRP transmissions (Davydov, [0028] [0029], indicate that each repetition operates under the multi-TRP mode as a whole).
As to claim 23, Davydov teaches wherein the DCI indicates at least one of: one or more sounding reference signal (SRS) resource indicators (SRIs) (Davydov, [0023], the DCI indicates one or more SRI fields).
As to claim 24, Davydov teaches wherein the one or more TCI states or one or more SRIs are applied to all scheduled PUSCH transmissions (Davydov, Table 3 SRI applied to all Tx PUSCH).
As to claim 25, Davydov teaches wherein: all PUSCH transmissions are associated with a same TRP (Davydov, [0028] [0029] Fig 1, the PUSCH transmissions in sTRP and mTRP are associated with TRP 1); and the DCI indicates a single TCI state or SRI applied to all scheduled PUSCH transmissions (Davydov, Table 3 SRI applied to all Tx PUSCH).
As to claim 27, Davydov teaches a method for wireless communications by a user equipment (UE) (Davydov, [0028] Fig 3 a method by a UE), comprising:
receiving a downlink control information (DCI) (Davydov, [0028], a UE receives DCI from a TRP) that schedules multiple physical uplink shared channels (PUSCHs) (Davydov, [0015][0016], the DCI schedules multiple PUSCH (repetitions)) and indicates whether each of the PUSCHs is scheduled as a single transmission reception point (S-TRP) or multiple TRP (M-TRP) transmission (Davydov, [0028] [0029], indicate that each repetition operates under the multi-TRP mode); and transmitting each of the PUSCHs to one or more of the TRPs in accordance with information indicated in the DCI (Davydov, Fig 3 [0028], 315 transmit the first and second PUSCH to the multiple TRP as indicated in the DCI received).
As to claim 28, Davydov teaches wherein the DCI comprises one or more bits that indicate whether the PUSCHs are S-TRP or M-TRP transmissions (Davydov, [0025], 2 bits in the DCI to indicate the PUSCH is sTRP or mTRP).
As to claim 29, Davydov teaches a method for wireless communications by a network entity (Davydov, [0028] Fig 3, a method by a TRP, comprising: transmitting, to a user equipment (UE), a downlink control information (DCI) (Davydov, [0028], a UE receives DCI from a TRP) that schedules multiple physical uplink shared channels (PUSCHs) (Davydov, [0015][0016], the DCI schedules multiple PUSCH (repetitions))and indicates whether each of the PUSCHs is scheduled as a single transmission reception points (S-TRP) or multiple TRP (M-TRP) transmission (Davydov, [0028] [0029], indicate that each repetition operates under the multi-TRP mode); and receiving each of the PUSCHs, via one or more of the TRPs, in accordance with information indicated in the DCI (Davydov, Fig 3 [0028], 315 receives the first and second PUSCH to the multiple TRP as indicated in the DCI).
As to claim 30, Davydov teaches wherein the DCI comprises one or more bits that indicate whether the PUSCHs are S-TRP or M-TRP transmissions (Davydov, [0025], 2 bits in the DCI to indicate the PUSCH is sTRP or mTRP).
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.
Claims 3-4, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davydov as applied to claims above, and further in view of Oppo: “Discussion on Beam Management for New SCSs”, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #106-e, R1-2107240, Aug 16-27 2021, as disclosed in the IDS.
As to claim 3, Davydov teaches one or more bits that indicate that PUSCH is an S-TRP or M-TRP transmission.
Davydov does not explicitly teach per scheduled PUSCH, that indicate whether that PUSCH is an S-TRP or M-TRP transmission.
However, Oppo teaches per scheduled PUSCH, that indicate whether that PUSCH is an S-TRP or M-TRP transmission. (Oppo, Section 2.2 Proposal 2 Fig 1&2, a single DCI with multiple PUSCH each indicating sTRP or mTRP, for each).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “per PUSCH indication” as taught by Oppo in the system of Davydov, so that it would provide a method of enhanced beam management (Oppo, Section 1).
As to claim 4, the combination of Davydov and Oppo teaches wherein the one or more bits indicate whether all PUSCHs are S-TRP or all PUSCHs are M-TRP transmissions (Davydov, [0028] [0029], indicate that each repetition operates under the multi-TRP mode as a whole).
As to claim 21, Davydov teaches one or more bits that indicate that PUSCH is an S-TRP or M-TRP transmission.
Davydov does not explicitly teach per scheduled PUSCH, that indicate whether that PUSCH is an S-TRP or M-TRP transmission.
However, Oppo teaches per scheduled PUSCH, that indicate whether that PUSCH is an S-TRP or M-TRP transmission. (Oppo, Section 2.2 Proposal 2 Fig 1&2, a single DCI with multiple PUSCH each indicating sTRP or mTRP, for each).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “per PUSCH indication” as taught by Oppo in the system of Davydov, so that it would provide a method of enhanced beam management (Oppo, Section 1).
Claims 8-13, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davydov as applied to claims above, and further in view of Kim et al (Pub No: 2021/0307070)
As to claim 8, Davydov teaches a DCI (Davydov, [0028], a UE receives DCI from a TRP).
Davydov does not explicitly teach a time domain resource allocation (TDRA) field that indicates time domain resources for the multiple PUSCHs.
However, Kim teaches a time domain resource allocation (TDRA) field that indicates time domain resources for the multiple PUSCHs (Kim, [0299], a TDRA field for resources for the PUSCH instances).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “TDRA” as taught by Kim in the system of Davydov, so that it would provide ultra-reliability and low latency communications (Kim, [0005]).
As to claim 9, the combination of Davydov and Kim teaches wherein each PUSCH has a separate start and length indicator vector (SLIV) (Kim, [0299], PUSCH instances have a SLIV), a mapping type (Davydov, [0028], the mapping type being s or m), and an offset between a slot in which the DCI is received and the PUSCH is scheduled (Kim, [00259], an offset for the TPC field in DCI).
As to claim 10, the combination of Davydov and Kim teaches wherein the DCI also indicates: a repetition number per PUSCH or a repetition number common to all the PUSCHs (Kim, [0336], a RV is indicated).
As to claim 11, the combination of Davydov and Kim teaches wherein the TDRA indicates time domain resources for two PUSCH occasions (Kim, [0299], a TDRA field for resources for the PUSCH instances) for a PUSCH scheduled as an M-TRP transmission to two TRPs (Davydov, Fig 3 [0028], an mTRP PUSCH to two TRPs).
As to claim 12, Davydov teaches a DCI (Davydov, [0028], a UE receives DCI from a TRP).
Davydov does not explicitly teach wherein the DCI comprises a frequency domain resource allocation (FDRA) field applied to all of the scheduled PUSCHs.
However, Kim teaches a frequency domain resource allocation (FDRA) field applied to all of the scheduled PUSCHs (Kim, [0540], a FDRA for the PUSCH).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “FDRA” as taught by Kim in the system of Davydov, so that it would provide ultra-reliability and low latency communications (Kim, [0005]).
As to claim 13, the combination of Davydov and Kim teaches wherein the FDRA indicates frequency domain resources for two PUSCH occasions (Kim, [0540], a FDRA for the PUSCH). for a PUSCH scheduled as an M-TRP transmission to two TRPs (Davydov, Fig 3 [0028], an mTRP PUSCH to two TRPs).
As to claim 26, Davydov teaches wherein the DCI comprises a time domain resource allocation (TDRA) field that indicates time domain resources for the multiple PUSCHs , Davydov teaches a DCI (Davydov, [0028], a UE receives DCI from a TRP).
Davydov does not explicitly teach a time domain resource allocation (TDRA) field that indicates time domain resources for the multiple PUSCHs.
However, Kim teaches a time domain resource allocation (TDRA) field that indicates time domain resources for the multiple PUSCHs (Kim, [0299], a TDRA field for resources for the PUSCH instances).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “TDRA” as taught by Kim in the system of Davydov, so that it would provide ultra-reliability and low latency communications (Kim, [0005]).
Claims 14, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davydov as applied to claims above, and further in view of Noh et al (Pub No: 2022/0278802)
As to claim 14, Davydov teaches a DCI (Davydov, [0028], a UE receives DCI from a TRP).
Davydov does not explicitly teach the DCI indicates one or more demodulation reference signal (DMRS) code division multiplexed (CDM) groups applied to all of the scheduled PUSCHs.
However, Noh teaches DCI indicates one or more demodulation reference signal (DMRS) code division multiplexed (CDM) groups applied to all of the scheduled PUSCHs. (Noh, [0172], the DCI indicates DMRS CDM groups applied to PUSCH and without).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “DMRS CDM group indication” as taught by Noh in the system of Davydov, because it teaches well knows fields indicated in a DCI format (Noh, [0144]).
As to claim 16, Davydov teaches a DCI (Davydov, [0028], a UE receives DCI from a TRP).
Davydov does not explicitly teach wherein the DCI indicates: at least one precoder indication and at least one demodulation reference signal (DMRS) phase tracking reference signal (PTRS) association indication.
However, Noh teaches the DCI indicates: at least one precoder indication and at least one demodulation reference signal (DMRS) phase tracking reference signal (PTRS) association indication. (Noh, [0176], PTRS association and [0171] precoding information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “precoding indication and PTRS association” as taught by Noh in the system of Davydov, because it teaches well knows fields indicated in a DCI format (Noh, [0144]).
As to claim 17, the combination of Davydov and Noh teaches wherein the at least one precoder indication indicates: a single SRI common to all the PUSCHs (Davydov, Table 3 SRI applied to all Tx PUSCH).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jang et al (Pub No: 2022/0132534) [0427] [0435].
Lim et al (Pub No: 2022/0312337) [0516]
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 AFSHAWN M TOWFIGHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM -5:00 PM.
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, Ian N Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
/AFSHAWN M TOWFIGHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights