DETAILED ACTION
1. The following Office Action is based on the preliminary amendment filed on 11 January 2024, having claims 26-45 (claims 1-25 were cancelled) and drawing figures 1-5.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
3. Claims 30, 37, and 44 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 30 recites the limitation “a used resource allocation table” in line 2. It is suggested that the word “used” be deleted to render the claim affirmative. The word “used” implies that the table was used in the past.
Claim 37 recites the limitation “a used resource allocation table” in line 2. It is suggested that the word “used” be deleted to render the claim affirmative. The word “used” implies that the table was used in the past.
Claim 44 recites the limitation “a used resource allocation table” in line 2. It is suggested that the word “used” be deleted to render the claim affirmative. The word “used” implies that the table was used in the past.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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 26, 28-29, 32-33, 35-36, 39-40, and 42-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (WO 2021/020955 A1), pages 1-56. A translated copy of this reference is attached to this Office Action. The cited page numbers refer to a printed copy of the translated document.
For claims 26, 33, and 40, Choi discloses an apparatus of a user equipment device (UE) device (page 15, terminal 100) for physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) repetition for half duplex (HD) wireless operations (page 39, the terminal/UE has half-duplex capability), the apparatus comprising processing circuitry (page 15, UE 100 comprises processor 110) coupled to storage (page 15, processor 110 is coupled to memory 130) for storing information associated with the HD operations, the processing circuitry configured to:
detect a repetition of a PUSCH transmission to be performed using HD operations (page 39, first paragraph, the terminal/UE operates in half-duplex mode; UE performs analysis to determine which slots/symbols to use for PUSCH repetition transmission);
identify, based on analysis of slot time overlap between the PUSCH transmission and downlink symbols or flexible symbols, an available slot time during which to transmit the repetition (page 39, first paragraph, symbols (slots) that are identified for downlink transmissions are considered invalid symbols (unavailable slots) for PUSCH repetition transmissions to avoid overlapping in time); and
encode the repetition to be transmitted during the available time slot (page 39, section 4, last 2 lines, the UE may transmit the PUSCH repetition in the remaining symbols (available slots) that are not excluded as invalid symbols).
For claims 28, 35, and 42, Choi discloses the repetition is a PUSCH repetition Type A instead of a PUSCH repetition Type B (page 23, fifth paragraph, PUSCH repetition Type A as defined in 3GPP NR release 15 may be used).
For claims 29, 36, and 43, Choi discloses the processing circuitry is further configured to identify a slot time that is not counted as available for the repetition (page 39, first paragraph, symbols (slots) that are identified for downlink transmissions are considered invalid symbols (unavailable slots) for PUSCH transmissions).
For claims 32 and 39, Choi discloses identify the available slot time is based on symbols of the PUSCH transmission not overlapping with a symbol of a synchronization signal (SS) or of a physical broadcast channel (PBCH) block (page 40, the symbols allocated for receiving SS and PBCH transport blocks are considered “invalid symbols” meaning are not available slots for PUSCH transmissions/no overlapping).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
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.
Claims 27, 34, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (WO 2021/020955 A1) in view of Nhan et al. (US 2022/0321269 A1).
For claims 27, 34, and 41, Choi does not expressly disclose identify the available slot time is based on transport block processing over multiple slots (TBoMS).
Nhan, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches identify the available slot time is based on transport block processing over multiple slots (TBoMS) ([0091-0092] the available slots (i.e., allocated symbols) for PUSCH transmissions are identified based on TBoMS). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to identify the available slots for PUSCH repetition transmissions in the communication network of Choi based on the teachings of Nhan at the time of the invention.
6. Claims 30-31, 37-38, and 44-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (WO 2021/020955 A1) in view of Khoshnevisan et al. (US 2023/0309110 A1).
For claims 30, 37, and 44, Choi does not expressly disclose symbols of the PUSCH transmission are based on a used resource allocation table, and wherein the available slot time is based on at least one of the symbols indicated by an indexed row of the used resource allocation table.
Khoshnevisan, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches symbols of the PUSCH transmission are based on a used resource allocation table ([0065] the available slots for PUSCH repetition transmissions are indicated in a TDRA table (resource allocation table)), and wherein the available slot time is based on at least one of the symbols indicated by an indexed row of the used resource allocation table ([0065] the available slots comprises one or more symbols used for the PUSCH repetitions, wherein each row of the table correspond to a number of repetitions). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to implement the resource allocation method of Khoshnevisan in the communication network of Choi at the time of the invention to indicate the available slots in an indexed row of the TDRA resource allocation table.
For claims 31, 38, and 45, Khoshnevisan discloses symbols of the PUSCH transmission are repeated using a same symbol allocation in the available slot time and in a second available slot time ([0065] each PUSCH repetition is transmitted in a respective/consecutive slot, wherein the same symbol allocation is used in each of the consecutive slots).
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisabeth B Magloire whose telephone number is (571)272-5601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM 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 at 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 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.
/ELISABETH BENOIT MAGLOIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471