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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/27/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wei et al. (US 20220264545).
Regarding claim 1, Wei discloses a terminal apparatus (Fig. 8) comprising:
an RRC layer processing circuitry configured to manage a Radio Resource Control (RRC) parameter used to determine which of first slot counting and second slot counting is used to determine a transmission occasion for a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) (if the UE does not receive the non-slot-rep, the UE may perform the slot-based repetition. If the UE is configured with the non-slot-rep for a PUSCH transmission, the UE may apply the non-slot-based repetition scheme to perform this PUSCH transmission; [0074-0075].
non-slot-based repetition indicator (e.g., non-slot-rep) may be configured by a BS (e.g., a gNB) via the RRC layer. For example, the non-slot-rep may be configured by a BS via a DL RRC message; [0078]); and
a physical layer processing circuitry configured to refer to the number of repetitions K of the PUSCH in addition to a value of the RRC parameter to determine which of the first slot counting and the second slot counting is used to determine the transmission occasion for the PUSCH (If the UE is configured with the non-slot-rep for a PUSCH transmission, the UE may apply the non-slot-based repetition scheme to perform this PUSCH transmission, where the number of repetitions for this PUSCH transmission may be determined by the pusch-AggregationFactor; [0075]),
wherein in a case that the number of repetitions K is greater than 1, one of the first slot counting or the second slot counting is used to determine the transmission occasion for the PUSCH, based on the RRC parameter (if the UE is configured with pusch-AggregationFactor-urllc and the PUSCH is on the serving cell group which is configured with the pusch-AggregationFactor-urllc, the UE shall repeat the TB pusch-AggregationFactor-urllc times across the symbols determined by following the non-slot-based repetition scheme (rule); It is noted the actual number of repetitions can be larger than the number configured by the pusch-AggregationFactor due the PUSCH transmission across a slot boundary or UL/DL direction of symbols; [0112]), and
in a case that the number of repetitions K is 1, the first slot counting is used to determine the transmission occasion for the PUSCH regardless of the value of the RRC parameter (if the UE is not configured with the pusch-AggregationFactor by the BS, the UE may set the number of (nominal) repetitions to 1. Once the number of repetitions is set to 1, the UL resource of the PUSCH transmission scheduled by the BS does not cross any DL symbol or slot boundary; [0076].
even if a UE is not configured with the pusch-AggregationFactor (which may imply that the number of nominal repetitions is “1”), the UE may still apply the non-slot-based repetition scheme to perform the corresponding PUSCH transmission; [0089]).
Regarding claim 4, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 20220264545) in view of Kim et al. (US 20250038893).
Regarding claim 2, Wei discloses in the second slot counting, the transmission occasion for the PUSCH is determined based on whether a set of OFDM symbols determined based on a value of a time domain resource assignment field included in a Downlink Control Information (DCI) format includes a downlink symbol determined by a second RRC parameter (if a PUSCH duration/transmission does not cross any flexible symbol, a UE may implicitly apply the non-slot-based repetition scheme for the PUSCH duration/transmission in a case that the PUSCH transmission is on a BWP configured with a specific slot format (e.g., preconfigured by a BS (e.g., a gNB) via RRC signaling such as the SlotFormatIndicator. In such implementations, the PUSCH duration/transmission may not include any flexible symbol. when a UE receives the DCI that indicates a UL grant for a PUSCH transmission, the UE may apply the non-slot-based repetition scheme; [0149-0151]).
Wei does not expressly disclose whether the set of OFDM symbols includes an OFDM symbol configured for transmission of an SS/PBCH block.
In an analogous art, Kim discloses whether the set of OFDM symbols includes an OFDM symbol configured for transmission of an SS/PBCH block (terminal may or may not transmit PUSCH instance(s) crossing a slot boundary according to a slot format (e.g., DL/FL symbols), an occupancy time (e.g., an SFI of a COT or an end symbol of a COT by an MCOT), or dynamic activation of invalid resources. An invalid symbol may refer to a symbol to which a PUSCH is not mapped by a DCI or RRC signaling, and a valid symbol may refer to a symbol (e.g., a symbol to which a PUSCH is mapped) that is not an invalid symbol within a time window. In addition, the invalid symbol may include a symbol in which an SS/PBCH block is indicated to be transmitted by RRC signaling and a symbol in which a type0-PDCCH CSS set is configured; [0426]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features taught by Kim into the system of Wei in order to reduce the burden of the TCI state lists by using only an SS/PBCH block index in the TCI state (Kim; [0119]).
Regarding claim 5, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the reasons cited in claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 6 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.
Dependent Claim 3, if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, would comprise a combination of elements which is not taught by the prior art of record. The same remarks apply to dependent claim 6 mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sun et al. (US 20200045700), “CONFIGURING A USER EQUIPMENT TO OPERATE IN A TRANSMISSION/RECEPTION POINT (TRP) MODE.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OUSSAMA ROUDANI whose telephone number is (571)272-4727. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, UN C CHO can be reached at (571) 272 7919. 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.
/OUSSAMA ROUDANI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2413
Prosecution Insights