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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 11/20/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election, without traverse, of a group linked to claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 05/22/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected invention groups II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/22/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5, 23, 25 and 31 are objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 3 recites, “as UTOs or ITOs,” (line 2). It is suggested to replace it with “as the UTOs or the ITOs,” for more clarity. Claims 5 (lines 4 and 8), 23 (line 3), 25 (lines 5 and 9) and 31 (line 3) are objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 1, 21 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tian et al (US Publication No. 2023/0180228 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tian discloses, a method for wireless communications [FIG. 7; its related descriptions; ¶0145-0157, communications between a base station and a UE], the method comprising:
determining corresponding hybrid automatic repeat request process identifiers (HARQ PIDs) for a plurality of physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission occasions of a multi-PUSCH configured grant (CG) cycle [FIG. 7; its related descriptions; ¶0145 and ¶00149, the UE 115 determines HARQ process identifiers for multi-PUSCH CG configurations] prior to processing a first PUSCH transmission of the multi-PUSCH CG cycle [FIG. 7; its related descriptions; ¶0149-0150, the UE 115 may determine a HARQ process ID for the first PUSCH transmission 720 (note that it is understood as the HARQ process ID is determined before the first PUSCH transmission 720 is processed, as claimed) of the multi-PUSCH configuration using Equation 7 and in accordance with a configured number of HARQ processes (e.g., nrofHARQ-Processes=4, (0, 1, 2, 3)) for the multi-PUSCH configuration]; and
performing uplink (UL) communications based at least on the determined one or more HARQ PIDs [FIG. 7; its related descriptions; ¶0149-0150, [FIG. 7; its related descriptions; ¶0149-0150, the UE 115 may determine a HARQ process ID for each PUSCH transmission 720 of the multi-PUSCH configuration using Equation 7; further note that the PUSCH transmission/uplink communication based on the determined HARQ process ID is implicit].
Regarding claim 21, Tian discloses, a baseband processor [FIG. 14; its related descriptions; ¶0227, a combined system including a processor 1440, a memory 1430 and a communication manager 1420; note that every user equipment has at least one baseband processor] comprising:
memory to store information [FIG. 14; its related descriptions; ¶0227, memory 1430 storing code 1435]; and
processing circuitry coupled with the memory and configured to (perform actions) [FIG. 14; its related descriptions; ¶0227, processor 1440 coupled to the memory 1430].
Since claim 21 recites similar features to claim 1 without additional features, claim 21 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 29, Tian discloses, a non-transitory memory element storing instructions executable by processing circuitry to (perform actions) [FIG. 14; its related descriptions; ¶0227 and 0230, a memory storing code 1435 including instructions that, when executed by the processor 1440, cause the device 1405 to perform various functions described herein]. Since claim 29 recites similar features to claim 1 without additional features, claim 29 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2-3, 7, 22-23, 27 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian et al (US Publication No. 2023/0180228 A1) in view of Chin et al (US Publication No. 2020/0154469 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Tian discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Although Tian discloses, evaluating status of CG timers associated with one or more of the determined corresponding HARQ PIDs [¶0155, when the UE 115 transmits a PUSCH transmission 720, the UE 115 may begin a respective CG timer. While the CG timer is running, the UE 115 may maintain information in a HARQ buffer for retransmitting the PUSCH transmission 720 if the base station 105 fails to successfully receive or decode the PUSCH transmission 720; further see ¶0149-0150, note that each PUSCH is associated with a corresponding HARQ process ID]; performing the UL communications . . . [FIG. 7; its related descriptions; ¶0149-0150, [FIG. 7; its related descriptions; ¶0149-0150, the UE 115 may determine a HARQ process ID for each PUSCH transmission 720 of the multi-PUSCH configuration using Equation 7; further note that the PUSCH transmission/uplink communication based on the determined HARQ process ID is implicit], Tian does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), identifying one or more PUSCH transmission occasions among the plurality of PUSCH transmission occasions as unused transmission occasions (UTOs) or invalid PUSCH transmission occasions (ITOs), based at least on the status of the CG timer; and performing the UL communications without using the UTOs and ITOs.
However, Chin discloses,
evaluating status of CG timers associated with one or more of the determined corresponding HARQ PIDs [¶0036, in action 230, the MAC entity may determine whether the CG timer for the HARQ process (which is associated with the HARQ process ID derived in action 220) is running (i.e., evaluating CG timer status)];
identifying one or more PUSCH transmission occasions among the plurality of PUSCH transmission occasions as unused transmission occasions (UTOs) or invalid PUSCH transmission occasions (ITOs), based at least on the status of the CG timer [¶0036, If the CG timer is running (i.e., based on the status of CG timer), the PUSCH duration may not be available for transmitting a new MAC PDU. In action 250, the MAC entity may ignore the PUSCH duration (i.e., identifying PUSCH transmission occasions as UTO) of the CG]; and
performing the UL communications without using the UTOs and ITOs [¶0036, in action 250, the MAC entity may ignore the PUSCH duration of the CG; note that the PUSCH is not transmitted in the PUSCH duration].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Tian with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Chin to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Chin into the system of Tian would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., preventing unnecessary transmissions and enabling more reliable and efficient HARQ-based uplink scheduling, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 3, Tian in view of Chin discloses, the method of claim 2 and particularly, “wherein identifying the one or more PUSCH transmission occasions among the plurality of PUSCH transmission occasions as UTOs or ITOs, based on the status of the CG timers “ as set forth above.
Tian does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Chin discloses, determining that the one or more PUSCH transmission occasions can be blocked by the CG timers running for the determined HARQ PIDs that correspond to the one or more PUSCH transmission occasions [¶0036, If the CG timer is running (i.e., based on the status of CG timer), the PUSCH duration may not be available for transmitting a new MAC PDU. In action 250, the MAC entity may ignore the PUSCH duration (i.e., identifying PUSCH transmission occasions as UTO) of the CG; note that the above-mentioned PUSCH duration is ignored/blocked by the CG timer running for the HARQ process ID that corresponds to PUSCH transmissions].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Chin in the system of Tian for similar rationales set forth above in claim 2.
Regarding claim 7, Tian in view of Chin discloses, the method of claim 2 as set forth above.
Tian does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Chin discloses, wherein the evaluating and the identifying are performed by a media access control (MAC) entity in a user equipment device (UE) [¶0036, FIG. 2 is a flowchart of an example method 200 for determining an availability of a CG PUSCH duration performed by a MAC entity of a UE; further see, in action 230, the MAC entity may determine whether the CG timer for the HARQ process (which is associated with the HARQ process ID derived in action 220) is running (i.e., evaluating CG timer status). If the CG timer is running, the PUSCH duration may not be available for transmitting a new MAC PDU. In action 250, the MAC entity may ignore the PUSCH duration (i.e., identifying PUSCH transmission occasions as UTO) of the CG].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Chin in the system of Tian for similar rationales set forth above in claim 2.
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 2.
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 3.
Regarding claim 27, Tian discloses, the baseband processor of claim 21 as set forth above.
Tian does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Chin discloses, the evaluating and the identifying are performed by a media access control (MAC) entity in a user equipment device (UE) [¶0036, FIG. 2 is a flowchart of an example method 200 for determining an availability of a CG PUSCH duration performed by a MAC entity of a UE; further see, in action 230, the MAC entity may determine whether the CG timer for the HARQ process (which is associated with the HARQ process ID derived in action 220) is running (i.e., evaluating CG timer status). If the CG timer is running, the PUSCH duration may not be available for transmitting a new MAC PDU. In action 250, the MAC entity may ignore the PUSCH duration (i.e., identifying PUSCH transmission occasions as UTO) of the CG].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Chin in the system of Tian for similar rationales set forth above in claim 2.
Regarding claim 30, claim 30 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 2.
Regarding claim 31, claim 31 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 3.
Claims 4, 24 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian et al (US Publication No. 2023/0180228 A1) in view of Chin et al (US Publication No. 2025/0287381 A1) and further in view of Li et al (US Publication No. 2025/0267655 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Tian in view of Chin discloses, the method of claim 2 as set forth above.
Tian in view of Chin does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Li discloses, identifying the UTOs and ITOs further based on a buffer status [¶0079, the UE may predict, e.g. based on the current buffer status, whether there will be unused resources in subsequent CG PUSCH resources].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Li in the system of Tian in view of Chin in order to cause the system to be more flexibility for reallocation [e.g., ¶0079 of Li].
Regarding claim 24, claim 24 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 4.
Regarding claim 32, claim 32 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 4.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian et al (US Publication No. 2023/0180228 A1) in view of Chin et al (US Publication No. 2025/0287381 A1) and further in view of Maamari et al (US Publication No. 2024/0260026 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Tian in view of Chin discloses, the method of claim 2 as set forth above.
Tian in view of Chin does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Maamari discloses, transmitting, to a base station, UTO uplink control information (UTO-UCI) comprising information that identifies the UTOs or ITOs or both [¶0063, the UE may indicate the unused resources as skipping information to the network entity in an uplink control information (UCI) message (e.g., uplink configuration information message)].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Tian in view of Chin with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Maamari to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Maamari into the system of Tian in view of Chin would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling the system to perform efficient uplink scheduling and improving resource utilization, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 8, Tian in view of Chin discloses, the method of claim 7 as set forth above.
Tian in view of Chin does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Maamari discloses, transmitting, by the MAC entity to a physical layer (PHY) in the UE, information that identifies the UTOs, the ITOs, or both [¶0063, the UE may indicate the unused resources as skipping information to the network entity in an uplink control information (UCI) message; note that in order to transmit the UCI indicating the unused resource/UTO, the UE needs to transmit the information of the UTO to its physical layer].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Maamari in the system of Tian in view of Chin for similar rationales set forth above in claim 8
Claims 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian et al (US Publication No. 2023/0180228 A1) in view of Maamari et al (US Publication No. 2024/0260026 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Tian discloses, the baseband processor of claim 21 as set forth above.
Tian does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Maamari discloses, transmit, to a base station, UTO uplink control information (UTO-UCI) comprising information that identifies the UTOs or ITOs or both [¶0063, the UE may indicate the unused resources as skipping information to the network entity in an uplink control information (UCI) message (e.g., uplink configuration information message)].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Tian with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Maamari to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Maamari into the system of Tian would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling the system to perform efficient uplink scheduling and improving resource utilzation, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 28, Tian discloses, the baseband processor of claim 21 as set forth above.
Tian does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Maamari discloses, transmit, by the MAC entity to a physical layer (PHY) in the UE, information that identifies the UTOs, the ITOs, or both [¶0063, the UE may indicate the unused resources as skipping information to the network entity in an uplink control information (UCI) message; note that in order to transmit the UCI indicating the unused resource/UTO, the UE needs to transmit the information of the UTO to its physical layer].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Tian with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Maamari to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Maamari into the system of Tian would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling the system to perform efficient uplink scheduling and improving resource utilization, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 25 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al (US Publication No. 2025/0287381 A1) [¶0292-0295]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN JONG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3216. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:30pm(M-T).
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, Ian Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/SUN JONG KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights