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 Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 7/27/2026. The amendment has been entered and considered.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. “Lee” WO2016190592 (applicant’s IDS) in view of Wei et al. “Wei” US2019/0158229 (applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17, Lee teaches a method program (Paragraphs 190 and 192) and network side equipment comprising:
a transceiver, a storage, a processor (Figure 5 (135 transceiver, 110 processor, 130 storage), and a program stored in the storage and configured to be executed by the processor; wherein the processor is configured to read the program in the storage and perform following process:
transmitting configuration information to user equipment (UE), wherein the configuration information comprises a duration of a configured grant timer; and the configured grant timer is used for recording whether a resource grant of a HARQ process is valid (a base station configures and transmits an UL grant to a UE which starts a timer; Paragraph 163. The timer is used to determine if a grant is valid; Paragraphs 163-164.The UE receives valid uplink grants for transmitting uplink data for a HARQ process; Paragraphs 100-101, 134. Thus one can see the grant timers are used with respect to HARQ processes being valid);
wherein the configured grant timer starts at a starting position of a subframe where UL/DL data corresponding to the resource ground of the HARQ process is transmitted (the UE uses a process that is mapped to the subframe where the UL transmission is performed on the grant/timer; Paragraphs 164-165 and 169. As the grant timer begins a moment when transmission can occur (provides duration the UE can send data to the base station, this is viewed as the subframe for the UL/DL transmission where data transmission is located).
While Lee teaches the duration of the configured grant timer is configured independently for TTI and UL transmissions (carriers), Lee does not disclose a timer configured independently for each BWP; however, Wei teaches that there are multiple configurations for timers and each of the configurations corresponds to a configured BWP; Paragraph 93. Thus, one can see there are a plurality of timers associated each of the BWPs.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Lee to include a plurality of timers each configured for different BWPs as taught by Wei.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can properly control the state switching of the UE as taught by Wei; Paragraph 92.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, while Lee teaches the duration of the configured grant timer is configured independently for TTI and UL transmissions (carriers); Paragraphs 163-165), Lee does not disclose when a reference parameter is BWP, a timer is configured independently for each BWP; however, Wei teaches that there are multiple configurations for timers and each of the configurations corresponds to a configured BWP; Paragraph 93. Thus, one can see there are a plurality of timers associated each of the BWPs.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Lee to include a plurality of timers each configured for different BWPs as taught by Wei.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can properly control the state switching of the UE as taught by Wei; Paragraph 92.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Lee teaches when the reference parameter is TTI duration/UL carrier, if a change occurs, running a configured grant timer corresponding to the duration before the change or corresponding to the duration after the change during the change to maintain a HARQ process in the duration before the change; when the configured grant scheduling information is received or retransmission is initiated in the duration after the change, running a configured grant timer corresponding to the duration after the change (HARQ is maintained at given TTIs if an uplink grant is indicated and the HARQ process routes the information properly; Paragraphs 103-105. Thus one can see there is a TTI duration with respect to the grant timer such that a HARQ process is maintained as claimed. Paragraphs 163-165 also disclose the timers being tied to UL transmissions).
While Lee teaches the reference parameter is for TTI, Lee does not disclose the reference parameter to be BWP configured independently for TTI; however, Wei teaches that there are multiple configurations for timers and each of the configurations corresponds to a configured BWP; Paragraph 93. Thus, one can see there are a plurality of timers associated each of the BWPs. When combined with Lee, one can see the configured grant timer would correspond to BWP (from Wei) with respect to a change of BWP.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Lee to include timers each configured for different BWPs as taught by Wei.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can properly control the state switching of the UE as taught by Wei; Paragraph 92.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Lee teaches a unit of the duration is a subframe, symbol or slot (the UE uses a process that is mapped to the subframe where the UL transmission is performed on the grant/timer; Paragraphs 164-165 and 169).
Regarding claims 5, 13, and 18, Lee teaches a method program (Paragraphs 190 and 192) and User Equipment comprising:
a transceiver, a storage, a processor, and a program stored in the storage and configured to be executed by the processor; wherein the processor is configured to read the program in the storage and perform following process:
receiving configuration information transmitted from the network side, wherein the configuration information comprises duration of a configured grant timer and the timer is used for recording whether a resource grant of a HARQ process is valid (a base station configures and transmits an UL grant to a UE which starts a timer; Paragraph 163. The timer is used to determine if a grant is valid; Paragraphs 163-164.The UE receives valid uplink grants for transmitting uplink data for a HARQ process; Paragraphs 100-101, 134. Thus one can see the grant timers are used with respect to HARQ processes being valid);
performing data transmission according to the configuration information and maintaining a state of the configured grant timer (Paragraph 162 teaches a UE maintaining a timer. Based on the timer, the UE transmits UL data; Paragraph 164);
wherein the configured grant timer starts at a starting position of a subframe where UL/DL transmissions correspond to the resource grant of the HARQ process (the UE uses a process that is mapped to the subframe where the UL transmission is performed on the grant/timer; Paragraphs 164-165 and 169. As the grant timer begins a moment when transmission can occur (provides duration the UE can send data to the base station, this is viewed as the subframe for the moment where data transmission is located).
While Lee teaches the duration of the configured grant timer is configured independently for TTI, Lee does not disclose a timer configured independently for each BWP; however, Wei teaches that there are multiple configurations for timers and each of the configurations corresponds to a configured BWP; Paragraph 93. Thus one can see there are a plurality of timers associated each of the BWPs.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Lee to include a plurality of timers each configured for different BWPs as taught by Wei.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can properly control the state switching of the UE as taught by Wei; Paragraph 92.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Lee teaches when the reference parameter is TTI duration, if a change of TTI occurs, running a configured grant timer corresponding to TTI duration before the change or corresponding to TTI duration after the change during the change of TTI to maintain an HARQ process in the TTI duration before the change; when the configured grant scheduling information is received or retransmission is initiated in the TTI duration after the change, running a configured grant timer corresponding to the TTI duration after the change (HARQ is maintained at given TTIs if an uplink grant is indicated and the HARQ process routes the information properly; Paragraphs 103-105. Thus one can see there is a TTI duration with respect to the grant timer such that a HARQ process is maintained as claimed).
While Lee teaches the reference parameter is for TTI, Lee does not disclose the reference parameter to be BWP configured independently for TTI; however, Wei teaches that there are multiple configurations for timers and each of the configurations corresponds to a configured BWP; Paragraph 93. Thus, one can see there are a plurality of timers associated each of the BWPs. When combined with Lee, one can see the configured grant timer would correspond to BWP (from Wei) with respect to a change of BWP.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Lee to include timers each configured for different BWPs as taught by Wei.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can properly control the state switching of the UE as taught by Wei; Paragraph 92.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Lee teaches acquiring timer duration of a target configured grant timer according to current transmission characteristics including uplink carrier and when there is data to be transmitted in the HARQ process, transmitting a data packet and starting or restarting the target grant timer (The time is tied to UL transmission (UL carrier). When a timer is running, data becomes available to transmit and the UE uses a HARQ process to transmit the data based on the timer/UL grant; Paragraphs 163-164);
When it is determined according to the duration of the target timer that the target timer expires, terminating the HARQ process and stopping the target timer (The UE can stop the timer and discard the UL grant after transmitting data or when the timer expires, the UE discards the grant thus stopping the HARQ process/timer; Paragraph 165).
Lee does not disclose the reference parameter to be BWP configured independently for TTI; however, Wei teaches that there are multiple configurations for timers and each of the configurations corresponds to a configured BWP; Paragraph 93. Thus, one can see there are a plurality of timers associated each of the BWPs. When combined with Lee, one can see the configured grant timer would correspond to BWP (from Wei) with respect to a change of BWP.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Lee to include timers each configured for different BWPs as taught by Wei.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can properly control the state switching of the UE as taught by Wei; Paragraph 92.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Lee teaches a unit of the duration is a subframe, symbol or slot (the UE uses a process that is mapped to the subframe where the UL transmission is performed on the grant/timer; Paragraphs 164-165 and 169).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues Lee does not teach the CG timer starts at a starting position of a subframe where UL data of the HARQ process is transmitted or the CG timer starts at a slot where UL data of the HARQ process is transmitted because Lee fails to expressly teach when the TimerV starts in paragraphs 163-165. Thus, Lee merely teaches the UE starts the TimerV when the UE receives the UL grant. In other words, the time the grant is received is the time the TimerV is started. Applicant further argues a person of skill in the art would appreciate the UL grant is an indication of allocated UL resources and thus the time when the grant is received cannot be construed as equivalent to the subframe or slot where UL data corresponding to the sources grant of the HARQ is transmitted, let alone the starting position of the subframe. Applicant further argues that although UL data can be transmit on the UL grant once the grant is received/TimerV started, it is not certain when there is UL data to transmit and when the UL data is ready for transmission. Applicant concludes that a moment when transmission can occur is not the same thing as a moment when transmission occurs. Applicant argues Lee does not teach the reception of the UL grant occurs at a starting position of a subframe where UL data transmission occurs on the UL grant.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim states the starting position of the
timer is a starting position of a subframe where UL data is transmit. The specification supports this claim by discussing the position as where a transmission moment is located. At various points throughout the instant specification, the starting position is defined as the subframe where the data transmission moment is located; however, the specification does not define what the transmission moment is. The Examiner is viewing the transmission moment as the moment the UE can begin to transmit. The specification does not define this moment to be the exact time a transmission occurs. Therefore, the claims do not need to be viewed as a moment when an actual transmission occurs as argued by the Applicant. As noted by the Applicant, the UE of Lee receives the grant timer and starts TimerV. This timer is the starting point (i.e. moment) of when a UE can begin to transmit UL data to the base station; Paragraphs 163, 165-168, 171, 181. Therefore, the prior art properly reads on the broad claim limitations.
Conclusion
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 BRANDON M RENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)-272-3123. 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.
/BRANDON M RENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights