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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9 of the Remarks filed on 08/03/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 14 and 20 under 35 USC 102(a) (1) and 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nagarajan et al follows.
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)(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 1-6, 13-14, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagarajan et al (hereinafter “Nagarajan”), US Pub. 2022/0240243 A1.
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Nagarajan discloses methods and system for a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) communication in a millimeter wave (mmWave) band. A user equipment (UE) of the system (fig. 2, system 200, UE 120) comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code (memory 282 stores processor-executable code); and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code (processor 280 coupled to the memory 282 to execute the code stored in the memory) to cause the UE to: receive control signaling that schedules one or more uplink messages for transmission by the UE ([0041]: Base station 110 may include a scheduler 246 to schedule UEs for downlink and/or uplink communications), wherein the control signaling that schedules the one or more uplink messages also indicates one or more orthogonal cover code parameters for the one or more uplink messages ([0081]-[0082]: UE 120 may apply OCC when processing the information for a PUCCH format 0 communication. For example, when UE 120 detects a threshold level of coverage, UE 120 may apply OCC to the information…In this case, UE 120 may determine whether to apply the OCC based at least in part on a measurement of the coverage or a received indicator from BS 110 (e.g., via radio resource control (RRC) or DCI signaling); and transmit, based at least in part on the control signaling, the one or more uplink messages using an orthogonal cover code i accordance with the one or more orthogonal cover code parameters (fig. 6, [0085]: UE 120 may transmit a PUCCH format 0, 1, 2, or 3, among other examples, using M contiguous RBs, different cyclic shifts, or applied OCC, among other examples to ensure that an approximately 50 MHz transmission bandwidth is occupied to enable usage of a maximum available amount of transmission power).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Nagarajan discloses wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive second control signaling that indicates that an orthogonal cover code scheme for uplink messages is enabled, wherein transmitting the one or more uplink messages is further in accordance with the orthogonal cover code scheme ([0083]-[0084]: UE 120 may use up to 32 RBs with coding across a set of 2 contiguous RBs and a pre-DFT OCC dimension of 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, or 12. In this case, UE 120 may construct an OCC sequence for processing the information using a DFT-matrix approach where an ith code of length N--s . UE 120 may determine a quantity of RBs to use based at least in part on whether interlaced mapping is enabled. For example, when non-interlaced mapping is enabled, UE 120 may use 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, or 16 RBs, which may reduce a complexity of transform precoding, relative to allowing other quantities of RBs, by constraining the quantity of RBs that are used. In contrast, when interlaced mapping is enabled, UE 120 may use 10 RBs for a single interlace or 20 RBs for two interlaces).
Regarding claim 3, Nagarajan discloses wherein, to indicate that the orthogonal cover code scheme is enabled, the second control signaling indicates one orthogonal cover code scheme from among a set of orthogonal cover code schemes, the one indicated orthogonal cover code scheme comprising the orthogonal cover code scheme that is enabled ([0084]: when interlaced mapping is enabled, UE 120 may use 10 RBs for a single interlace or 20 RBs for two interlaces. In some aspects, UE 120 may process the information in connection with a set of RBunits . An RBunit may be defined as 16 RBs, resulting in a maximum of 2 RBunits. In this case, if a single RBunit is configured, UE 120 may determine to transmit the information over a first RBunit, RBunit,0. In contrast, if two RBunits are configured, UE 120 may transmit the information (e.g., uplink control information (UCI) bits) across RBunit,0 and RBunit,1, which cover the complete 32 RBs).
Regarding claim 4, Nagarajan discloses wherein: the control signaling comprises a downlink control information (DCI) message, and the second control signaling comprises radio resource control signaling ([0081]: UE 120 may determine whether to apply the OCC based at least in part on a measurement of the coverage or a received indicator from BS 110 (e.g., via radio resource control (RRC) or DCI signaling).
Regarding claim 5, Nagarajan discloses, wherein, based at least in part on indicating the one or more orthogonal cover code parameters, the control signaling implicitly indicates that an orthogonal cover code scheme is enabled ([0083]-[0084]: UE 120 may use up to 32 RBs with coding across a set of 2 contiguous RBs and a pre-DFT OCC dimension of 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, or 12. In this case, UE 120 may construct an OCC sequence for processing the information using a DFT-matrix approach where an ith code of length N--s . UE 120 may determine a quantity of RBs to use based at least in part on whether interlaced mapping is enabled. For example, when non-interlaced mapping is enabled, UE 120 may use 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, or 16 RBs, which may reduce a complexity of transform precoding, relative to allowing other quantities of RBs, by constraining the quantity of RBs that are used. In contrast, when interlaced mapping is enabled, UE 120 may use 10 RBs for a single interlace or 20 RBs for two interlaces)..
Regarding claim 6, Nagarajan discloses, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive radio resource control signaling that indicates a spreading factor for the orthogonal cover code ([0082]: UE 120 may determine the index, for an OCC sequence of length 1-4, as (n0 + nidx) mod Nsf, where Nsf is a spreading factor of the OCC).
Regarding claim 13, Nagarajan discloses wherein, to transmit the one or more uplink messages, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: transmit the one or more uplink messages via a physical uplink shared channel (see fig. 3: uplink channel: PUSCH).
Regarding claim 14, Nagarajan discloses a network entity (fig. 2. BS 130), comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code (memory 242 storing processor-executable code); and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code (processor 240 coupled to the memory 242 to execute the code) to cause the network entity to: output control signaling that schedules one or more uplink messages for transmission by a user equipment (UE), wherein the control signaling that schedules the one or more uplink messages also indicates one or more orthogonal cover code parameters for the one or more uplink messages; and obtain, based at least in part on the control signaling, the one or more uplink messages based at least in part on an orthogonal cover code that is in accordance with the one or more orthogonal cover code parameters (see claim 1 shown above).
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 7-8, 10, 12, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagarajan as shown above in view of Nam et al (hereinafter “Nam”), US Pub. 2012/0014320 A1.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Nagarajan does not explicitly disclose wherein, to indicate the one or more orthogonal cover code parameters, the control signaling indicates a row within a time domain resource allocation table, the row corresponding to the one or more orthogonal cover code parameters. Nam discloses this feature at figures 6 and 7A-B. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the feature disclosed by Nam into Nagarajan’s system for optimizing resource allocation.
Regarding claims 8 and 12, Nagarajan does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more orthogonal cover code parameters corresponding to the row within the time domain resource allocation table comprise a spreading factor for the orthogonal cover code, an orthogonal cover code index corresponding to the orthogonal cover code, or both. Nam discloses this feature at paragraphs [0004]-[0007], [0113] and [0115]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the feature disclosed by Nam into Nagarajan’s system for optimizing resource allocation.
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Nagarajan does not disclose wherein, to indicate the one or more orthogonal cover code parameters, the control signaling indicates a row within an orthogonal cover code table, the row comprising the one or more orthogonal cover code parameters. Nam discloses this feature at figures 6 and 7A-B. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the feature disclosed by Nam into Nagarajan’s system for optimizing resource allocation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 11, 15 and 18 are 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.
Seo et al, US Pub. 2017/0257191 A1, discloses a method and apparatus for transmitting downlink control information in a wireless communication system in which serving cells using different types of radio frames are aggregated.
Seo et al, US Pub. 2016/0219547 A1, discloses a method of determining an uplink transmission timing of a user equipment (UE) having a plurality of cells configured therefor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI D HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3184. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30 am-18:30pm.
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, Asad Nawaz can be reached at (571) 272-3988. 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.
THAI HOANG D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2463
/THAI DINH HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
