DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 36 and 37 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 uses acronyms CG and DG for the first time in the claim set.
Claim 36 uses acronym TB for the first time in the claim set.
Claim 37 uses acronym MCS for the first time in the claim set.
The acronyms should be expanded at least once when first used in the claim set.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 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 CG-based uplink transmission or 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 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
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 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fang et al. (US-PGPUB 2024/0098738) teaches receiving the downlink control information (DCI) sent by the network device. The DCI is used to schedule the terminal device to send uplink transmission. The DCI is provided with first indication information and second indication information.
Park et al. (USPN 11,871,420) teaches receiving downlink control information (DCI) from a base station. Determination is made to check whether the DCI are used for scheduling of multi-panel uplink transmissions. Multi-panel uplink transmission is performed by the base station based on the DCIs.
Kim et al. (US-PGPUB 2023/0023982) teaches receiving configuration information related to multiple sounding reference signal (SRS) resource sets. The uplink transmission is performed based on the indicated at SRS resource. The rank of the first uplink transmission associated with the first SRS resource set (rank) and the ranks of the second uplink transmissions associated with the SRS resource sets are the same.
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