DETAILED ACTION
In response to communication filed on 3/14/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 statements (IDS) submitted on 3/14/2024, 1/7/2025, 6/12/2025, 10/10/2025 and 1/29/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the limitation “a postponement or a dropping duration of a narrowband internet of things physical uplink shared channel (NPUSCH) due to a narrowband internet of things physical random access channel (NPRACH) collision is counted in segment duration” is indefinite because it is unclear to whether the segment duration is the same as the claimed segment length parameter already defined or another type of segment parameter.
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 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)(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 1-8,10-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mediatek et al. (“Summary #6 of AI 8.15.1 Enhancements to time and frequency synchronization”)(M1 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, M1 teaches an apparatus (i.e. eNB) for wireless communication [page 2; section 2.2.1; coordination between UE and eNB] comprising a processor, configured to implement a method (it is inherent that a device such as an eNB would comprise of a processor or CPU to implement functions)[refer page 37; Initial Proposal - Section 4.2.2-3; ZTE Comment - “to ensure the performance for coherent processing…”], the processor configured to:
transmit, by a base station (i.e. eNB), a segmentation parameter for a physical channel (i.e. PRACH and PUSCH) via a system information block (SIB) or a radio resource control (RRC) signaling (duration of UL transmission segment for PRACH and PUSCH are configured by network)[page 41; Initial Proposal – Section 4.2.2-3; Spreadtrum Comment], the segmentation parameter includes a segment length (segment length can be configured through SIB broadcasting)[page 52; Third Round Proposal – Section 4.5-2; ZTE Comment].
Regarding claims 2 and 12, M1 teaches the physical channel includes a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (duration of UL transmission segment for PRACH and PUSCH are configured by network)[page 41; Initial Proposal – Section 4.2.2-3; Spreadtrum Comment].
Regarding claims 3 and 13, M1 teaches the physical channel includes a physical random access channel (PRACH)(duration of UL transmission segment for PRACH and PUSCH are configured by network)[page 41; Initial Proposal – Section 4.2.2-3; Spreadtrum Comment].
Regarding claims 4 and 14, M1 teaches an apparatus for wireless communication (i.e. UE) [page 2; section 2.2.1; coordination between UE and eNB] comprising a processor, configured to implement a method (it is inherent that a device such as a UE would comprise of a processor or CPU to implement functions)[refer page 37; Initial Proposal - Section 4.2.2-3; ZTE Comment - “to ensure the performance for coherent processing…”], the processor configured to:
receive, by a user equipment (UE), a segmentation parameter for a physical channel (i.e. PRACH and PUSCH) via a system information block (SIB) or a radio resource control (RRC) signaling (duration of UL transmission segment for PRACH and PUSCH are configured by network)[page 41; Initial Proposal – Section 4.2.2-3; Spreadtrum Comment], the segmentation parameter includes a segment length (segment length can be configured through SIB broadcasting)[page 52; Third Round Proposal – Section 4.5-2; ZTE Comment].
Regarding claims 5 and 15, M1 teaches the physical channel includes a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (duration of UL transmission segment for PRACH and PUSCH are configured by network)[page 41; Initial Proposal – Section 4.2.2-3; Spreadtrum Comment].
Regarding claims 6 and 16, M1 teaches the physical channel includes a physical random access channel (PRACH) (duration of UL transmission segment for PRACH and PUSCH are configured by network)[page 41; Initial Proposal – Section 4.2.2-3; Spreadtrum Comment].
Regarding claims 7 and 17, M1 teaches an overlapping part of a second segment that overlaps with a first segment is dropped [page 35; section 4.2.2; “For segmented UE timing pre-compensation, if signal is overlapped between different TA segments, the last one is dropped”].
Regarding claims 8 and 18, M1 teaches an uplink gap is inserted between two adjacent segments [page 77; Section 9; Lenovo – Proposal 4; “UE pre-compensation done per N time units with inserting transmission gap or puncturing uplink transmission should be considered in UL transmission in IoT on NTN”].
Regarding claims 10 and 20, M1 teaches a postponement or a dropping duration of a narrowband internet of things physical uplink shared channel (NPUSCH) due to a narrowband internet of things physical random access channel (NPRACH) collision is counted in segment duration [page 49; section 4.5; “For NB-IoT, if a mapping to Nslots slots or a repetition of the mapping in an UL transmission segment for UE pre-compensation for NPUSCH transmission contains a resource element which overlaps with any configured NPRACH resource, the NPUSCH transmission in overlapped Nslots slots is postponed until the next Nslots slots not overlapping with any configured NPRACH resource”].
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 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 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.
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 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mediatek et al. (“Summary #6 of AI 8.15.1 Enhancements to time and frequency synchronization”)(M1 hereafter) in view of Yan et al. (US Pub.2024/0322946)(Y1 hereafter).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, M1 teaches a narrowband internet of things physical uplink shared channel (NPUSCH) transmission that overlaps with a narrowband internet of things physical random access channel (NPRACH) occasion is postponed in response to resources for the NPUSCH transmission overlapping with resources for the NPRACH occasion [page 45; section 4.4; “For NB-IoT, postponement of NPUSCH transmission if overlapping with NPRACH resource is specified”].
However, M1 doesn’t expressly disclose the NPUSCH transmission is postponed until a NPRACH transmission is finished.
Y1 discloses that a NPUSCH transmission in an overlapped slot is postponed until the next slots not overlapping with any configured NPRACH resource (i.e. until transmission is finished)[paragraph 0027].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of M1 for postponing of a transmission if there is an overlap [page 45; section 4.4; “For NB-IoT, postponement of NPUSCH transmission if overlapping with NPRACH resource is specified”] to incorporate explicit postponing of a NPUSCH transmission until a next slot when the NPRACH is not overlapping as taught by Y1. One would be motivated to do so to prevent the NPUSCH transmission from overlapping with the NPRACH [refer Y1; paragraph 0027].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Panteleev et al. (US Pub. 2022/0159706) discloses that a PUSCH may be based on a length of a first segment and scaling, which can be provided as part of DCI, RRC or other higher layer signaling [paragraph 0217], and when a PUSCH transmission is overlapping with a higher priority signal, the PUSCH is dropped [paragraph 0222].
Nader et al. (US Patent No. 12,556,989) discloses the sending of a parameter indicating a required or recommended segmentation size for segments of messages, the messages can be received via SIBS [column 3 lines 56-67].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN C KAVLESKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3619. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-3pm.
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, Charles C Jiang can be reached on 571-270-7191. 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.
Ryan Kavleski
/R. K./
Examiner, Art Unit 2412
/CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412