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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed on 04/01/20204 has a total of 11 claims pending in the application; there are 3 independent claims and 8 dependent claims, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FURUYAMA et al. Publication NO. (US 2025/0261199 A1) in view of SASAKI et al. Publication NO. (US 2022/0046617 A1).
Regarding claim 1, FURUYAMA teaches an apparatus (UE 200 FIG.5) comprising:
at least one processor (processor 285 FIG.5); and
at least one memory (memory 287 FIG.5) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (the UE 200 may include a memory that stores a program (i.e., the memory 287) and one or more processors that can execute the program (i.e., the processor 285), and the one or more processors may execute the program to perform the operation of the processing section 230 [0089-94] FIG.5), cause the apparatus at least to:
receive at least one time domain resource assignment indication from a network entity (UE 30 may receive, from a base station 100, at least one of system information, an RRC message, and DCI including information indicating reception of repetitions of a PDSCH, based on configuration or indication in a time domain resource assignment (TDRA) table including the numbers of repetitions of a PDSCH configured, a value in the TDRA table may be indicated by a value set in a field ([0178-179] FIG.21);
determine whether at least one first message early indication is configured and whether time domain resource assignment is enabled based on the received at least one time domain resource assignment indication (the UE may determine control for the PDSCH, based on at least one of Msg1 based early indication being configured and Msg1 based early indication being performed. As in the example of FIG. 22, the UE may recognize repetitions of a PDSCH, based on at least one of Msg1 based early indication being configured and Msg1 based early indication being performed. [0180-182] FIG.23); and
upon determining that at least one first message early indication is configured and that time domain resource assignment is enabled (the UE may recognize repetitions of a PDSCH, based on at least one of Msg1 based early indication being configured and Msg1 based early indication being performed [0180-181]), determine a timing of a second message based on the at least one time domain resource assignment indication and a time parameter associated with the at least one time domain resource assignment (the UE may determine transmission timing of Msg3, based on a slot of the last repetition with a RAR message, a PUSCH time resource allocation (assignment) field in the RAR message, and a TDRA table [0181-182] FIG.23)
FURUYAMA does not explicitly teach an extension indication of the time domain resource assignment.
SASAKI teaches an extension indication of the time domain resource assignment (SASAKI: e gNB 1 may use an extended default time domain allocation table having 17 or more rows and set the size of the time domain resource assignment field of the scheduling DCI to be 5 bits or more. When the SCS of the SS/PBCH blocks has the second value (e.g., 120 kHz) or larger and the UE 2 has not been configured with another table by RRC signaling, the UE 2 may use the extended default table and identify that the size of the time domain resource assignment field of the scheduling DCI is 5 bits or more [0075-80] FIG.5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified FURUYAMA by the teaching of SASAKI to indicate an extension of the TDRA in order to for the UE to efficiently identify the size of the time domain resource assignment field of the scheduling DCI (SASAKI: [0080-84] FIG.4).
Regarding claim 2, FURUYAMA teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to: transmit to the network entity a first message indicating at least one capability of the apparatus (The UE may transmit capability information related to downlink processing (for example, data decoding processing capability) supported by the UE [0185] FIG.22).
Regarding claim 3, FURUYAMA teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the at least one memory and the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to: receive from the network entity a third message as a response to the first message (When the UE has received a PDSCH that ends in slot n with a corresponding RAR message, for PRACH transmission from the UE, the UE transmits a PUSCH in slot given a value corresponding to the value in the PUSCH time resource allocation field in the RAR UL grant, by using the time domain resource allocation table [0166-168]).
Regarding claim 4, FURUYAMA teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to: transmit to the network entity the second message based on the determined timing of the second message (the UE transmits a PUSCH in slot given a value corresponding to the value in the PUSCH time resource allocation field in the RAR UL grant, by using TDRA table [0166-168]).
Regarding claims 5-7, the independent claim and each dependent claim are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 1-4, where the difference used is the limitations were presented from the “base station” side (FURUYAMA: FIG.3) and the wordings of the claims were interchanged within the claim itself or some of the claims were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claims and interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to these claims. Therefore, these claims were rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Regarding claims 8-11, the independent claim and each dependent claim are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 1-4, where the difference used is the limitations were presented from a “method” at the UE side (FURUYAMA: FIG.4) and the wordings of the claims were interchanged within the claim itself or some of the claims were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claims and interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to these claims. Therefore, these claims were rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Conclusion
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDELNABI O MUSA whose telephone number is (571)270-1901, and email address is abdelnabi.musa@uspto.gov ‘preferred’. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Bates, can be reached on 571-2723980. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system? Contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDELNABI O MUSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472