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 Amendment
The amendment filed March 23, 2026 has been entered. Claims 16-18 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 16-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0095353) in view of Azari et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2025/0266945) and further in view of Zhang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0137292).
Regarding claim 16, Liu teaches “[a] user equipment (UE), comprising: at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium storing one or more computer-executable instructions for handling uplink transmission collisions in time domain; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium and configured to execute the one or more computer-executable instructions to cause the UE to: determine a plurality of physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) repetitions for a PUSCH transmission of the UE” (see ¶¶ [0036], [0238], and [0353]–[0355]; terminal device can be user equipment (UE); terminal device includes memory and processor, and programs (i.e., computer-executable instructions) for realizing the described functions are stored on computer-readable recording medium (i.e., non-transitory computer-readable media); a higher layer parameter pusch-AggregationFactor is used to indicate the number of repetition transmissions of data (a transport block); thus, based on pusch-AggregationFactor, the terminal apparatus (UE) determines a plurality of PUSCH repetitions for an uplink (UL) PUSCH transmission of the UE);
Liu further teaches “group the plurality of PUSCH repetitions into one or more groups, each group having two or more PUSCH repetitions from the plurality of PUSCH repetitions” (see ¶¶ [0239] and [0240]; in a case that pusch-AggregationFactor is configured (i.e., configured to group the plurality of PUSCH repetitions) for the terminal apparatus (UE), the terminal apparatus (UE) may transmit the PUSCH N times in N continuous slots (i.e., group the plurality of PUSCH repetitions into one or more groups of PUSCH repetitions) and N greater 1; therefore, terminal apparatus (UE) may transmit the PUSCH N>1 times in N>1 continuous slots (i.e., each group of PUSCH repetitions comprising a set of two or more PUSCH repetitions); thus, terminal groups the plurality of PUSCH repetitions into one or more groups, each group having two or more PUSCH repetitions from the plurality of PUSCH repetitions);
Liu further teaches “allocate a Redundancy Version (RV) to each group” (see ¶¶ [0239] and [0240]; a redundancy version applied to transmission of a transport block may be determined based on the (n−1)th transmission occasion of the transport block and rvid indicated by the DCI scheduling the PUSCH; sequence of the redundancy versions is {0, 2, 3, 1} and incremented in order; therefore, if N =2, then each group of PUSCH repetitions comprises two PUSCH repetitions, and after then second transmission a different RV from the sequence of RVs will be applied to the next group; thus, allocate a Redundancy Version (RV) to each group).
Liu does not explicitly disclose “wherein a number of the two or more PUSCH repetitions in each group is the same as an orthogonal cover code (OCC) length of the PUSCH transmission” and “in the PUSCH transmission of the UE including the plurality of PUSCH repetitions, in a case that the UE does not transmit a PUSCH repetition of a group of the one or more groups, drop all the two or more PUSCH repetitions of the group” of claim 16. However, the foregoing limitations were well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For example, Azari teaches “wherein a number of the two or more PUSCH repetitions in each group is the same as an orthogonal cover code (OCC) length of the PUSCH transmission” (see ¶ [0044]; the length of the OCC to use for a number of PUSCH repetitions is equal to the number of repetitions (i.e., a number of the two or more PUSCH repetitions in each group is the same as an orthogonal cover code (OCC) length). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Liu to incorporate the teachings Azari to have a number of PUSCH repetitions in each group to be the same as an OCC length of the PUSCH transmission. The suggestion to do so would have been to support OCC for PUSCH transmissions (see ¶ [0037] of Azari).
The combination of Liu and Azari does not explicitly disclose “in the PUSCH transmission of the UE including the plurality of PUSCH repetitions, in a case that the UE does not transmit a PUSCH repetition of a group of the one or more groups, drop all the two or more PUSCH repetitions of the group” of claim 16. However, the foregoing limitations were well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For example, Zhang teaches “in the PUSCH transmission of the UE including the plurality of PUSCH repetitions, in a case that the UE does not transmit a PUSCH repetition of a group of the one or more groups, drop all the two or more PUSCH repetitions of the group” (see ¶ [0048] and FIG. 2; UE may drop all PUSCH repetitions (i.e., drop all the two or more PUSCH repetitions of the group) resulting in transmission sequence that only includes the PUCCH (i.e., in a case that the UE does not transmit a PUSCH repetition of a group of the one or more groups); thus, in the PUSCH transmission of the UE including the plurality of PUSCH repetitions, in a case that the UE does not transmit a PUSCH repetition of a group of the one or more groups, drop all the two or more PUSCH repetitions of the group). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Liu in view of Azari to incorporate the teachings Zhang drop all PUSCH repetitions when UE does not transmit PUSCH repetition. The suggestion to do so would have been to improve collision resolution (see ¶ [0039] of Zhang).
Regarding claim 17, it is a method claim corresponding to claim 16 that has been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 16. Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 18, Liu teaches “[a] base station (BS) comprising: at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium storing one or more computer-executable instructions for handling uplink transmission collisions in time domain; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium and configured to execute the one or more computer-executable instructions to cause the BS to: receive a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmitted by a user equipment (UE) including a plurality of PUSCH repetitions, wherein: the plurality of PUSCH repetitions is grouped into one or more groups, each group having two or more PUSCH repetitions from the plurality of PUSCH repetitions” (see ¶¶ [0036], [0238]-[0240], and [0353]–[0355]; base station apparatus (BS) includes memory and processor, and programs (i.e., computer-executable instructions) for realizing the described functions are stored on computer-readable recording medium (i.e., non-transitory computer-readable media); in a case that pusch-AggregationFactor is configured (i.e., configured to group the plurality of PUSCH repetitions) for the terminal apparatus (UE), the terminal apparatus (UE) may transmit the PUSCH N times in N continuous slots (i.e., group the plurality of PUSCH repetitions into one or more groups of PUSCH repetitions) and N greater 1; therefore, terminal apparatus (UE) may transmit the PUSCH N>1 times in N>1 continuous slots (i.e., each group of PUSCH repetitions comprising a set of two or more PUSCH repetitions); thus, the plurality of PUSCH repetitions is grouped into one or more groups, each group having two or more PUSCH repetitions from the plurality of PUSCH repetitions);
Liu further teaches “a Redundancy Version (RV) is allocated to each group” (see ¶¶ [0239] and [0240]; a redundancy version applied to transmission of a transport block may be determined based on the (n−1)th transmission occasion of the transport block and rvid indicated by the DCI scheduling the PUSCH; sequence of the redundancy versions is {0, 2, 3, 1} and incremented in order; therefore, if N =2, then each group of PUSCH repetitions comprises two PUSCH repetitions, and after then second transmission a different RV from the sequence of RVs will be applied to the next group; thus, allocate a Redundancy Version (RV) to each group).
Liu does not explicitly disclose “a number of two or more PUSCH repetitions in each group is the same as an orthogonal cover code (OCC) length of the PUSCH transmission” and “in a case that the BS does not receive a PUSCH repetition of a group of the one or more groups from the UE, the BS does not receive all the two or more PUSCH repetitions of the group” of claim 18. However, the foregoing limitations were well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For example, Azari teaches “a number of two or more PUSCH repetitions in each group is the same as an orthogonal cover code (OCC) length of the PUSCH transmission” (see ¶ [0044]; the length of the OCC to use for a number of PUSCH repetitions is equal to the number of repetitions (i.e., a number of the two or more PUSCH repetitions in each group is the same as an orthogonal cover code (OCC) length). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Liu to incorporate the teachings Azari to have a number of PUSCH repetitions in each group to be the same as an OCC length of the PUSCH transmission. The suggestion to do so would have been to support OCC for PUSCH transmissions (see ¶ [0037] of Azari).
The combination of Liu and Azari does not explicitly disclose “in a case that the BS does not receive a PUSCH repetition of a group of the one or more groups from the UE, the BS does not receive all the two or more PUSCH repetitions of the group” of claim 18. However, the foregoing limitations were well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For example, Zhang teaches “in a case that the BS does not receive a PUSCH repetition of a group of the one or more groups from the UE, the BS does not receive all the two or more PUSCH repetitions of the group” (see ¶ [0048] and FIG. 2; UE may drop all PUSCH repetitions resulting in transmission sequence that only includes the PUCCH (i.e., in a case that the BS does not receive a PUSCH repetition of a group of the one or more groups from the UE, the BS does not receive all the two or more PUSCH repetitions of the group)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Liu in view of Azari to incorporate the teachings Zhang to have the BS not receive all of the PUSCH repetitions when BS does not receive a PUSCH repetition of a group of the one or more groups from the UE. The suggestion to do so would have been to improve collision resolution (see ¶ [0039] of Zhang).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Guo et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2025/0008554 A1) teaches dropping all PUSCH repetitions when a PUSCH is not transmitted.
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 SRIHARSHA REDDY VANGAPATY whose telephone number is (571)272-7655. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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.
/SRIHARSHA REDDY VANGAPATY/Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights