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 .
Response to Remarks
This Office Action is considered to be fully responsive to the communications filed on 03/03/2026. Claims 1-30 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 8-10, filed 03/03/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-30 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pages 8-10 of Remarks that Li does not teach certain features of the independent claim 1, stating that “Li does not disclose PUSCHs “that are scheduled via a single downlink control information (DCI)” as recited in amended independent claim 1”. Examiner disagrees with this opinion, as Li does teach this feature, and a claim mapping has been provided below. As Applicant points out on page 8 of Remarks, Examiner cited to paragraph [0093]-[0094] of Li, which states that “For CG PUSCH repetition type B, … a time gap (i.e. switching gab/transient period(s)) between two consecutive actual repetitions is needed” (emphasis added). Additionally, paragraph [0009] of Li explicitly states that “a single DCI schedules all the PUSCH repetitions” for “single-DCI based multi-TRP PUSCH repetition type A and type B” (emphasis added), which clearly shows that a single DCI schedules all PUSCHs. For these reasons the rejections to claims 1-30 are maintained. For more details, please see the Claim Rejections section below.
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.
(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, 5-6, 8-10, 13-14, 16-18, 21-22, 24-26, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al (US 20240235737 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses
An apparatus for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE), comprising ([0136], [Fig. 1], and [Fig. 7] system for wireless communication UE):
one or more memories comprising instructions ([0136], [0141], [Fig. 1], and [Fig. 7] UE comprises memory that stores instructions); and
one or more processors configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to: ([0136], [0141], [Fig. 1], and [Fig. 7] UE comprises processor and memory that stores instructions to perform operations):
receive signaling indicating a time gap to be applied between at least two physical uplink shared channels (PUSCHs) that are scheduled via a single downlink control information (DCI) for transmission to different transmission reception points ([0093]-[0094] and [Fig. 1]-[Fig. 2] UE receives time/switching gap (time gap to be applied is indicated) to be used in between two consecutive PUSCH transmissions via DCI (single DCI), where the PUSCH transmissions are to be sent to two different TRPs TRP1 and TRP2); and
transmit the at least two PUSCHs to the TRPs, in accordance with the time gap ([0093]-[0094] and [Fig. 1] UE transmits PUSCH#1 and PUSCH#2 to TRP1 and TRP2 using the time gap between the two PUSCH transmissions).
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the signaling comprises a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) ([0093]-[0094] the time/switching gap may be configured via MAC CE).
Regarding claim 5, Li discloses
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the signaling comprises the DCI that scheduled the at least two PUSCHs ([0026] and [Fig. 1] DCI schedules the PUSCH transmissions PUSCH#1 and PUSCH#2 (PUSCH transmissions scheduled by the DCI)).
Regarding claim 6, Li discloses
The apparatus of claim 5, wherein the DCI comprises a time domain resource allocation (TDRA) field that indicates the time gap ([0093]-[0094], [0010]-[0011], [0035], and [0073] time/switching gap (time gap, resources are in time domain) is included in DCI, where the DCI includes SRI fields corresponding to resource sets (resource allocation field, where the resources are in time domain; i.e. time domain resource allocation TDRA)).
Regarding claim 8, Li discloses
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least two PUSCHs are transmitted to the TRPs via a same panel of the UE ([0093]-[0094] and [Fig. 1] the two PUSCH transmissions to the TRPs can be sent using the same panel on the UE).
Regarding claim 9, Li discloses
An apparatus for wireless communications at a network entity, comprising ([0136], [Fig. 1], and [Fig. 7] system for wireless communication TRP):
one or more memories comprising instructions ([0136], [0141], [Fig. 1], and [Fig. 7] UE comprises memory that stores instructions); and
one or more processors configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to ([0136], [0141], [Fig. 1], and [Fig. 7] UE comprises processor and memory that stores instructions to perform operations):
transmit, to a user equipment (UE), signaling indicating a time gap to be applied between at least two physical uplink shared channels (PUSCHs) that are scheduled via a single downlink control information (DCI) for transmission to different transmission reception points (TRPs) ([0093]-[0094] and [Fig. 1]-[Fig. 2] UE receives time/switching gap (time gap to be applied is indicated) to be used in between two consecutive PUSCH transmissions via DCI (single DCI), where the PUSCH transmissions are to be sent to two different TRPs TRP1 and TRP2); and
receive the at least two PUSCHs, via the TRPs, in accordance with the time gap ([0093]-[0094] and [Fig. 1] UE transmits PUSCH#1 and PUSCH#2 to TRP1 and TRP2 using the time gap between the two PUSCH transmissions).
Regarding claim 10, Li discloses
The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the signaling comprises a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) ([0093]-[0094] the time/switching gap may be configured via MAC CE).
Regarding claim 13, Li discloses
The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the signaling comprises the DCI that scheduled the at least two PUSCHs ([0026] and [Fig. 1] DCI schedules the PUSCH transmissions PUSCH#1 and PUSCH#2 (PUSCH transmissions scheduled by the DCI)).
Regarding claim 14, Li discloses
The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the DCI comprises a time domain resource allocation (TDRA) field that indicates the time gap ([0093]-[0094], [0010]-[0011], [0035], and [0073] time/switching gap (time gap, resources are in time domain) is included in DCI, where the DCI includes SRI fields corresponding to resource sets (resource allocation field, where the resources are in time domain; i.e. time domain resource allocation TDRA)).
Regarding claim 16, Li discloses
The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the at least two PUSCHs are transmitted to the TRPs via a same panel of the UE ([0093]-[0094] and [Fig. 1] the two PUSCH transmissions to the TRPs can be sent using the same panel on the UE).
Regarding claim 17, Li discloses
A method for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE), comprising ([0136], [Fig. 1], and [Fig. 7] system for wireless communication UE):
receiving signaling indicating a time gap to be applied between at least two physical uplink shared channels (PUSCHs) that are scheduled via a single downlink control information (DCI) for transmission to different transmission reception points (TRPs) ([0093]-[0094] and [Fig. 1]-[Fig. 2] UE receives time/switching gap (time gap to be applied is indicated) to be used in between two consecutive PUSCH transmissions via DCI (single DCI), where the PUSCH transmissions are to be sent to two different TRPs TRP1 and TRP2); and
transmitting the at least two PUSCHs to the TRPs, in accordance with the time gap ([0093]-[0094] and [Fig. 1] UE transmits PUSCH#1 and PUSCH#2 to TRP1 and TRP2 using the time gap between the two PUSCH transmissions).
Regarding claim 18, Li discloses
The method of claim 17, wherein the signaling comprises a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) ([0093]-[0094] the time/switching gap may be configured via MAC CE).
Regarding claim 21, Li discloses
The method of claim 17, wherein the signaling comprises the DCI that scheduled the at least two PUSCHs ([0026] and [Fig. 1] DCI schedules the PUSCH transmissions PUSCH#1 and PUSCH#2 (PUSCH transmissions scheduled by the DCI)).
Regarding claim 22, Li discloses
The method of claim 21, wherein the DCI comprises a time domain resource allocation (TDRA) field that indicates the time gap ([0093]-[0094], [0010]-[0011], [0035], and [0073] time/switching gap (time gap, resources are in time domain) is included in DCI, where the DCI includes SRI fields corresponding to resource sets (resource allocation field, where the resources are in time domain; i.e. time domain resource allocation TDRA)).
Regarding claim 24, Li discloses
The method of claim 17, wherein the at least two PUSCHs are transmitted to the TRPs via a same panel of the UE ([0093]-[0094] and [Fig. 1] the two PUSCH transmissions to the TRPs can be sent using the same panel on the UE).
Regarding claim 25, Li discloses
A method for wireless communications at a network entity, comprising ([0136], [Fig. 1], and [Fig. 7] system for wireless communication TRP):
transmitting, to a user equipment (UE), signaling indicating a time gap to be applied between at least two physical uplink shared channels (PUSCHs) that are scheduled via a single downlink control information (DCI) for transmission to different transmission reception points (TRPs) ([0093]-[0094] and [Fig. 1]-[Fig. 2] UE receives time/switching gap (time gap to be applied is indicated) to be used in between two consecutive PUSCH transmissions via DCI (single DCI), where the PUSCH transmissions are to be sent to two different TRPs TRP1 and TRP2); and
receiving the at least two PUSCHs, via the TRPs, in accordance with the time gap ([0093]-[0094] and [Fig. 1] UE transmits PUSCH#1 and PUSCH#2 to TRP1 and TRP2 using the time gap between the two PUSCH transmissions).
Regarding claim 26, Li discloses
The method of claim 25, wherein the signaling comprises a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) ([0093]-[0094] the time/switching gap may be configured via MAC CE).
Regarding claim 29, Li discloses
The method of claim 25, wherein the signaling comprises the DCI that scheduled the at least two PUSCHs ([0026] and [Fig. 1] DCI schedules the PUSCH transmissions PUSCH#1 and PUSCH#2 (PUSCH transmissions scheduled by the DCI)).
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 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 3, 11, 19, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 20240235737 A1), and further in view of Huang et al (US 20200053752 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Li teaches The apparatus of claim 1, as is described above.
Li does not explicitly teach wherein the signaling indicates two timing advances (TAs) for the TRPs
However, Huang does teach wherein the signaling indicates two timing advances (TAs) for the TRPs ([0116] and [Fig. 6] UE may transmit separate uplink PUSCH channels to TRPs 605-a and 605-b based on separate TAs (two timing advances for the TRPs)).
Li and Huang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, as they are both in the same field of configuring UE communications with TRPs. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to include the teachings of Huang where two TAs are indicated in signaling. The rationale behind this would be to allow the transmissions to be scheduled separately ([0116] Huang).
Regarding claim 11, Li teaches The apparatus of claim 9, as is described above.
Li does not explicitly teach wherein the signaling indicates two timing advances (TAs) for the TRPs.
However, Huang does teach wherein the signaling indicates two timing advances (TAs) for the TRPs ([0116] and [Fig. 6] UE may transmit separate uplink PUSCH channels to TRPs 605-a and 605-b based on separate TAs (two timing advances for the TRPs)).
Li and Huang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, as they are both in the same field of configuring UE communications with TRPs. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to include the teachings of Huang where two TAs are indicated in signaling. The rationale behind this would be to allow the transmissions to be scheduled separately ([0116] Huang).
Regarding claim 19, Li teaches The method of claim 17, as is described above.
Li does not explicitly teach wherein the signaling indicates two timing advances (TAs) for the TRPs
However, Huang does teach wherein the signaling indicates two timing advances (TAs) for the TRPs ([0116] and [Fig. 6] UE may transmit separate uplink PUSCH channels to TRPs 605-a and 605-b based on separate TAs (two timing advances for the TRPs)).
Li and Huang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, as they are both in the same field of configuring UE communications with TRPs. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to include the teachings of Huang where two TAs are indicated in signaling. The rationale behind this would be to allow the transmissions to be scheduled separately ([0116] Huang).
Regarding claim 27, Li teaches The method of claim 25, as is described above.
Li does not explicitly teach wherein the signaling indicates two timing advances (TAs) for the TRPs.
However, Huang does teach wherein the signaling indicates two timing advances (TAs) for the TRPs ([0116] and [Fig. 6] UE may transmit separate uplink PUSCH channels to TRPs 605-a and 605-b based on separate TAs (two timing advances for the TRPs)).
Li and Huang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, as they are both in the same field of configuring UE communications with TRPs. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to include the teachings of Huang where two TAs are indicated in signaling. The rationale behind this would be to allow the transmissions to be scheduled separately ([0116] Huang).
Claims 4, 12, 20, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 20240235737 A1), Huang et al (US 20200053752 A1), and further in view of Laddu et al (US 20220182957 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Li modified by Huang teaches The apparatus of claim 3, as is described above.
Li does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to determine the time gap based on a difference in values of the two TAs.
However, Laddu does teach wherein the one or more processors are configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to determine the time gap based on a difference in values of the two TAs ([0027] processor with memory including computer program code configured to cause the apparatus to perform functions; [0080]-[0088] UE determines the timing gap between the two different TAs (difference in values of the two TAs) based on the timing difference).
Li, Huang, and Laddu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, as they are both in the same field of configuring UE communications with TRPs. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li/Huang to include the teachings of Laddu where the timing difference is used to determine the timing gap between the two TAs. The rationale behind this would be to eliminate or greatly reduce such issues including collisions ([0024] Laddu).
Regarding claim 12, Li modified by Huang teaches The apparatus of claim 11, as is described above.
Li does not explicitly teach the time gap is based on a difference in values of the two TAs.
However, Laddu does teach the time gap is based on a difference in values of the two TAs (difference in values of the two TAs) based on the timing difference).
Li, Huang, and Laddu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, as they are both in the same field of configuring UE communications with TRPs. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li/Huang to include the teachings of Laddu where the timing difference is used to determine the timing gap between the two TAs. The rationale behind this would be to eliminate or greatly reduce such issues including collisions ([0024] Laddu).
Regarding claim 20, Li modified by Huang teaches The method of claim 19, as is described above.
Li does not explicitly teach further comprising determining the time gap based on a difference in values of the two TAs.
However, Laddu does teach further comprising determining the time gap based on a difference in values of the two TAs ([0080]-[0088] UE determines the timing gap between the two different TAs (difference in values of the two TAs) based on the timing difference).
Li, Huang, and Laddu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, as they are both in the same field of configuring UE communications with TRPs. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li/Huang to include the teachings of Laddu where the timing difference is used to determine the timing gap between the two TAs. The rationale behind this would be to eliminate or greatly reduce such issues including collisions ([0024] Laddu).
Regarding claim 28, Li modified by Huang teaches The method of claim 27, as is described above.
Li does not explicitly teach the time gap is based on a difference in values of the two TAs.
However, Laddu does teach the time gap is based on a difference in values of the two TAs (difference in values of the two TAs) based on the timing difference).
Li, Huang, and Laddu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, as they are both in the same field of configuring UE communications with TRPs. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li/Huang to include the teachings of Laddu where the timing difference is used to determine the timing gap between the two TAs. The rationale behind this would be to eliminate or greatly reduce such issues including collisions ([0024] Laddu).
Claims 7, 15, 23, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 20240235737 A1), and further in view of Laddu et al (US 20220182957 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Li teaches The apparatus of claim 1, as is described above.
Li does not explicitly teach wherein the time gap is positive, negative, or zero.
However, Laddu does teach wherein the time gap is positive, negative, or zero ([0080]-[0088] the timing gap is determined based on the timing difference between the two TAs, and both positive and negative values can be expected (since it is a difference, if the two TA values are equal, 0 can reasonably be expected as well)).
Li and Laddu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, as they are both in the same field of configuring UE communications with TRPs. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to include the teachings of Laddu where the timing difference is used to determine the timing gap between the two TAs and positive, negative, or zero values can be expected. The rationale behind this would be to eliminate or greatly reduce such issues including collisions ([0024] Laddu).
Regarding claim 15, Li teaches The apparatus of claim 9, as is described above.
Li does not explicitly teach wherein the time gap is positive, negative, or zero.
However, Laddu does teach wherein the time gap is positive, negative, or zero ([0080]-[0088] the timing gap is determined based on the timing difference between the two TAs, and both positive and negative values can be expected (since it is a difference, if the two TA values are equal, 0 can reasonably be expected as well)).
Li and Laddu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, as they are both in the same field of configuring UE communications with TRPs. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to include the teachings of Laddu where the timing difference is used to determine the timing gap between the two TAs and positive, negative, or zero values can be expected. The rationale behind this would be to eliminate or greatly reduce such issues including collisions ([0024] Laddu).
Regarding claim 23, Li teaches The method of claim 17, as is described above.
Li does not explicitly teach wherein the time gap is positive, negative, or zero.
However, Laddu does teach wherein the time gap is positive, negative, or zero ([0080]-[0088] the timing gap is determined based on the timing difference between the two TAs, and both positive and negative values can be expected (since it is a difference, if the two TA values are equal, 0 can reasonably be expected as well)).
Li and Laddu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, as they are both in the same field of configuring UE communications with TRPs. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to include the teachings of Laddu where the timing difference is used to determine the timing gap between the two TAs and positive, negative, or zero values can be expected. The rationale behind this would be to eliminate or greatly reduce such issues including collisions ([0024] Laddu).
Regarding claim 30, Li teaches The method of claim 25, as is described above.
Li does not explicitly teach wherein the time gap is positive, negative, or zero.
However, Laddu does teach wherein the time gap is positive, negative, or zero ([0080]-[0088] the timing gap is determined based on the timing difference between the two TAs, and both positive and negative values can be expected (since it is a difference, if the two TA values are equal, 0 can reasonably be expected as well)).
Li and Laddu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, as they are both in the same field of configuring UE communications with TRPs. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to include the teachings of Laddu where the timing difference is used to determine the timing gap between the two TAs and positive, negative, or zero values can be expected. The rationale behind this would be to eliminate or greatly reduce such issues including collisions ([0024] Laddu).
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 ADAM JOEL CERLANEK whose telephone number is (703)756-1272. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00.
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, Joseph Avellino can be reached at (571) 272-3905. 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.
/A.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2478 /JAY L VOGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights