DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Papasakellariou does not teach performing uplink transmission with multiple codewords. However, examiner disagrees. Papasakellariou teaches the encoder can be a TBCC or TC and CRC bits are included in each encoded codeword. This shows that uplink transmission is done using multiple codewords. In the jointly encoded transmission, there are multiple codewords as stated in the claims. The claims do not mention anything about how the uplink transmission is done. It simply states that multiple codewords are used in the uplink transmission which is taught by Papasakellariou reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 7, 29, 32 and 60-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Papasakellariou (US-PGPUB 2018/0160413).
Regarding claim 1, Papasakellariou teaches a method at a user equipment (UE) for uplink transmission with multiple codewords, the method comprising: performing, with one or more network nodes, an uplink transmission with multiple codewords [Para 81-82, uplink transmission is done using UCI and CRC bits in PUCCH using multiple codewords].
Regarding claim 7, Papasakellariou teaches when the uplink transmission is Type 2 Configured Grant (CG)-based uplink transmission or Dynamic Grant (DG) based uplink transmission and before the step of performing the uplink transmission, the method further comprises: receiving, from at least one of the network nodes, at least one Downlink Control Information (DCI) message for scheduling the uplink transmission [Para 71, DCI message is received via dynamic grant for scheduling uplink transmission in PUSCH].
Regarding claim 29, Papasakellariou teaches receiving, from at least one of the network nodes, a message indicating a configuration for Demodulation Reference Signal (DMRS) ports for the multiple codewords [Para 70].
Regarding claim 32, Papasakellariou teaches performing the uplink transmission comprising multiple Uplink Control Information (UCI) that are mapped to one or more codewords [Para 82].
Regarding claim 60, Papasakellariou teaches the uplink transmission is Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) transmission [Para 69].
Regarding claim 61, Papasakellariou teaches the network node is a Transmission Reception Point (TRP) [Fig. 1, 103].
Regarding claim 62, Papasakellariou teaches a user equipment, comprising: a processor [Fig. 2, 240]; a memory storing instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform, with one or more network nodes, an uplink transmission with multiple codewords [Fig. 2, 260].
Regarding claim 63, Papasakellariou teaches a method at a network node for uplink transmission with multiple codewords from a User Equipment (UE), the method comprising: performing, with the UE, an uplink transmission with multiple codewords [Para 81-82, uplink transmission is done using UCI and CRC bits in PUCCH using multiple codewords].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papasakellariou (US-PGPUB 2018/0160413) in view of Kim (USPN 12,526,831).
Regarding claim 8, Papasakellariou teaches a method as discussed in rejection of claim 7.
However, Papasakellariou does not teach for at least one of the multiple codewords, the DCI message comprises at least one field for at least one of: a Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS); a New Data Indicator (NDI); and a Redundancy Version (RV).
Kim teaches for at least one of the multiple codewords, the DCI message comprises at least one field for at least one of: a Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS); a New Data Indicator (NDI) [Col. 18, lines 18-30]; and a Redundancy Version (RV).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have NDI in a DCI message so that PUSCH retransmission parameter can be configured.
Claims 10 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papasakellariou (US-PGPUB 2018/0160413) in view of Yi (USPN 12,556,966).
Regarding claim 10, Papasakellariou teaches a method as discussed in rejection of claim 7.
However, Papasakellariou does not teach wherein the DCI message is a DCI format 0_0, 0_1 or 0_2 message.
Yi teaches wherein the DCI message is a DCI format 0_0, 0_1 or 0_2 message [Col. 19, lines 63-67].
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use DCI format 0_0 or 0_1 so that PUSCH can be scheduled in a cell.
Regarding claim 27, Papasakellariou teaches a method as discussed in rejection of claim 1.
However, Papasakellariou does not teach receiving, from a network node, a message indicating that at least one of the multiple codewords is disabled.
Yi teaches receiving, from a network node, a message indicating that at least one of the multiple codewords is disabled [Col. 26, line 64 – Col. 27, line 3].
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive a message regarding disabling of one of the codewords to that transform decoding is not performed.
Claim 56 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papasakellariou (US-PGPUB 2018/0160413) in view of Wong et al. (USPN 12,477,545).
Regarding claim 56, Papasakellariou teaches a method as discussed in rejection of claim 1.
However, Papasakellariou does not teach uplink transmission is performed with a repetition type A or a repetition Type B.
Wong teaches uplink transmission is performed with a repetition type A or a repetition Type B [Col. 17, lines 48-62].
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use repetition type A or repetition type B so that flexible transmission occasions can be used allowing UE to be in control of the PUSCH repetition.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37 and 58 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.
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 CHANDRAHAS PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 - 17:30.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 571-272-3139. 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.
/Chandrahas B Patel/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights