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 .
Claims 1-30 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS statements filed to date have been considered 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 12-18, 24, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al., US 2022/0030619, (“Huang”), in view of Ying et al., US 2022/0361230, (“Ying”).
Independent Claims
Regarding claim 1, Huang teaches “A user equipment (UE) (Fig. 2, UE 120) for wireless communication, comprising:
one or more memories (Fig. 2); and
one or more processors (Fig. 2), coupled to the one or more memories, configured to:
transmit, in a first physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission occasion of a first configured grant (CG) configuration, first PUSCH data of a packet (Fig. 3, step 320 and paragraph nos. 0054, 0065 and in particular, 0065, “the UE transmits the uplink communication to the base station on the CG resource. For example, the UE may transmit the uplink communication as a PUSCH communication using a resource allocation identified by the CG”); and
transmit, in a second PUSCH transmission occasion of a second configuration, second PUSCH data of the packet” (paragraph no. 0077, “BS 110 may detect the scheduling request but may fail to detect the configured grant PUSCH communication. In this case, based at least in part on link quality not being strong enough for BS 110 to detect the configured grant PUSCH communication (but strong enough for BS 110 to determine, from the scheduling request, that UE 120 was attempting to transmit the configured grant PUSCH communication), BS 110 may transmit a DCI to schedule a retransmission of the PUSCH communication. Additionally, or alternatively, BS 110 may transmit the DCI to cause UE 120 to switch from configured grant PUSCH transmission to dynamic grant PUSCH transmission on different resource blocks (e.g., that may be associated with improved link quality)”).
While Huang teaches that the UE retransmits the same packet via a second dynamic grant configuration, it does not teach retransmitting the same packet in a “second CG configuration” as required by claim 1.
Ying discloses that multiple configurations of the PUSCH may be configured in a case that the multiple configured configurations are configured, see paragraph nos. 0163 and 0164. Ying discloses that retransmissions of the same packet are performed via the multiple configured grant configurations, see paragraph no. 0205.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Huang by incorporating the teachings of Ying to improve communication flexibility and/or efficiency, as suggested by Ying in paragraph no. 0005. In addition, such a modification would have been further obvious since the use of a second configured grant configuration to re-transmit the same packet would enable the UE to autonomously transmit using the configured grant resources, as taught by Huang in paragraph no. 0067.
Regarding independent claim 24, this independent claim is a corresponding method claim of the apparatus claim 1 and recites similar subject matter. As such, the rationale behind the above rejection of claim 1 applies with equal force to this independent claim.
Regarding independent claim 18, Huang teaches “A network node (Fig. 2, base station 130) for wireless communication, comprising:
one or more memories (Fig. 2); and
one or more processors (Fig. 2), coupled to the one or more memories, configured to:
obtain, in a first physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission occasion of a first configured grant (CG) configuration, first PUSCH data of a packet (Fig. 3, step 320 and paragraph nos. 0054, 0065 and in particular, 0065, “the UE transmits the uplink communication to the base station on the CG resource. For example, the UE may transmit the uplink communication as a PUSCH communication using a resource allocation identified by the CG”); and
obtain, in a second PUSCH transmission occasion of a second configuration, second PUSCH data of the packet” (paragraph no. 0077, “BS 110 may detect the scheduling request but may fail to detect the configured grant PUSCH communication. In this case, based at least in part on link quality not being strong enough for BS 110 to detect the configured grant PUSCH communication (but strong enough for BS 110 to determine, from the scheduling request, that UE 120 was attempting to transmit the configured grant PUSCH communication), BS 110 may transmit a DCI to schedule a retransmission of the PUSCH communication. Additionally, or alternatively, BS 110 may transmit the DCI to cause UE 120 to switch from configured grant PUSCH transmission to dynamic grant PUSCH transmission on different resource blocks (e.g., that may be associated with improved link quality)”).
While Huang teaches that the UE retransmits the same packet via a second dynamic grant configuration, it does not teach retransmitting the same packet in a “second CG configuration” as required by claim 18.
Ying discloses that multiple configurations of the PUSCH may be configured in a case that the multiple configured configurations are configured, see paragraph nos. 0163 and 0164. Ying discloses that retransmissions of the same packet are performed via the multiple configured grant configurations, see paragraph no. 0205.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Huang by incorporating the teachings of Ying to improve communication flexibility and/or efficiency, as suggested by Ying in paragraph no. 0005. In addition, such a modification would have been further obvious since the use of a second configured grant configuration to re-transmit the same packet would enable the UE to autonomously transmit using the configured grant resources, as taught by Huang in paragraph no. 0067.
Regarding independent claim 28, this independent claim is a corresponding method claim of the apparatus claim 18 and recites similar subject matter. As such, the rationale behind the above rejection of claim 18 applies with equal force to this independent claim.
Dependent Claims
Regarding claim 2, Huang teaches “wherein: the one or more processors, to transmit the first PUSCH data, are configured to transmit the first PUSCH data during a configured packet transmission period (paragraph no. 0055 discloses a packet transmission period); and
the one or more processors, to transmit the second PUSCH data, are configured to transmit the second PUSCH data during the configured packet transmission period” (paragraph nos. 0055, 0077 – also, the re-transmission of the same packet and the initial packet transmission both occur at some defined time period which implicitly teaches that both PUSCH data are transmitted during the same defined time period, thereby teaching the limitation “during the configured packet transmission period”).
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “wherein a start time associated with the second CG configuration is based at least in part on transmission of the first PUSCH data” would logically follow from the above modification of Huang in view of Ying vis a vis the claim 1 rejection since the re-transmission of the same packet in Huang via a second CG configuration (as taught by Ying) occurs after the initial transmission of the PUSCH packet and therefore, the start time of the re-transmission is “based” at least on the initial transmission of the PUSCH packet.
Regarding claim 13, Huang does not teach but Ying teaches “wherein a start time associated with the second CG configuration is configured” (paragraph nos. 0117, 0197 disclose a start time of a configured grant including a second configured grant – see paragraph no. 0197). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Huang and Ying by incorporating the additional teachings of Ying to improve the utilization of the multiple configured grant configurations.
Regarding claim 14, Huang teaches “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive a first radio resource control (RRC) message configuring the first CG configuration” (paragraph no. 0054). Huang nor Ying teaches “receive a second RRC message configuring the second CG configuration” as recited in claim 14. Ying teaches that the multiple configured grant configurations are received in a single RRC message, see paragraph no. 0006. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Huang and Ying by receiving the second CG configuration via a second, separate RRC message since this is nothing more than an alternative means of receiving the second CG configuration via the use of the well known RRC messaging scheme.
Regarding claim 15, Huang does not teach but Ying teaches “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive a radio resource control (RRC) message configuring the first CG configuration and the second CG configuration” (paragraph no. 0006). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Huang and Ying by incorporating the additional teachings of Ying to efficiently receive the multiple CG configurations via a single RRC message.
Regarding claim 16, Huang teaches “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: transmit or receive an indication enabling transmission of the first PUSCH data in the first PUSCH transmission occasion and enabling transmission of the second PUSCH data in the second PUSCH transmission occasion” (paragraph nos. 0054, 0077).
Regarding claim 17, Huang teaches “wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the first PUSCH data, are configured to: transmit the first PUSCH data before transmitting the second PUSCH data” (paragraph no. 0077, the initial PUSCH transmission is transmitted before re-transmitting the same PUSCH transmission).
Claim(s) 3-6, 19-20, 25-26, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang and Ying as applied to claims 1, 18, 24, 28 above, and further in view of Rao et al., US 2026/0082388, (“Rao”).
Regarding claims 3, 19, and 25, Huang does not teach but Rao teaches “wherein the first PUSCH data is an indication to switch to the second CG configuration” (paragraph nos. 0281, 0384).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Huang and Ying by incorporating the teachings of Rao to allow the UE to coordinate the switching to the second CG configuration with the base station, thereby improving the uplink and/or downlink communications between the UE and the base station.
Regarding claims 4, 20, 26, and 29, Huang does not teach but Rao teaches “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: transmit an indication to switch to the second CG configuration” (paragraph no. 0281).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Huang and Ying by incorporating the teachings of Rao to allow the UE to coordinate the switching to the second CG configuration with the base station, thereby improving the uplink and/or downlink communications between the UE and the base station.
Regarding claim 5, Huang does not teach but Rao teaches “wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the indication to switch to the second CG configuration, are configured to: transmit uplink control information (UCI) that includes the indication to switch to the second CG configuration” (paragraph no. 0281).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Huang, Ying and Rao by incorporating the additional teachings of Rao to allow the UE, via the UCI, to coordinate the switching to the second CG configuration with the base station, thereby improving the uplink and/or downlink communications between the UE and the base station.
Regarding claim 6, Huang does not teach but Rao teaches “wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the UCI, are configured to: transmit the UCI in the first PUSCH transmission occasion” (paragraph no. 0281).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Huang, Ying and Rao by incorporating the additional teachings of Rao to allow the UE, via the UCI in the initial PUSCH transmission, to coordinate the switching to the second CG configuration with the base station, thereby improving the uplink and/or downlink communications between the UE and the base station.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-11, 21-23, 27, and 30 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.
Regarding claims 7 and 21, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the claim limitations “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive a configuration of a minimum time duration between transmission of the first PUSCH data or uplink control information (UCI) that includes an indication to switch to the second CG configuration and transmission of the second PUSCH data.”
Regarding claims 8 and 22, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the claim limitations “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive an indication of a plurality of candidate minimum time durations between transmission of the first PUSCH data or uplink control information (UCI) that includes an indication to switch to the second CG configuration and transmission of the second PUSCH data; and transmit a selected minimum time duration of the plurality of candidate minimum time durations.”
Regarding claims 9, 23, 27, and 30, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the claim limitations “wherein the first CG configuration is configured with a first plurality of PUSCH transmission occasions including the first PUSCH transmission occasion, wherein the second CG configuration is configured with a second plurality of PUSCH transmission occasions including the second PUSCH transmission occasion, and wherein the first plurality of PUSCH transmission occasions is less dense than the second plurality of PUSCH transmission occasions.”
Claims 10-11 depend from claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WON TAE C. KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1812. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571)272-7884. 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.
/WON TAE C KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2414