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 .
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This communication is considered fully responsive to the amendment filed on 08/14/2026.
Claims 1, 3-6, 7 and 16 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims filed on 08/14/2026 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are related solely to newly added limitations addressed in the instant Office Action with newly identified prior art, thus rendering applicant’s arguments moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 16-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 16 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Said claim recites “segmenting a nominal repetition around the idle period and the invalid symbols into at least the first PUSCH actual repetition before the idle period and the second PUSCH actual repetition after the idle period and the invalid symbol,” “determining whether the first PUSCH actual repetition and the second PUSCH actual repetition belong to a same PUSCH nominal repetition based on the invalid symbols and the idle period,” and “receiving … uplink data in the first PUSCH actual repetition and the second PUSCH actual repetition based on the determination.”
The originally filed disclosure describes a UE treating idle-period and beginning of FFP symbols as invalid and segmenting a nominal PUSCH repetition around those symbols. The disclosure also describes a base station receiving a first PUSCH actual repetition before an idle period and receiving a second PUSCH actual repetition after the idle period. However, the originally filed disclosure does not describe the base station segmenting the nominal repetition, determining whether the first and second actual repetitions belong to the same nominal repetition based on the idle period and invalid symbols, or receiving uplink data in the actual repetitions based on that determination. The disclosure therefore, does not reasonably convey to a PHOSITA that the invention had possession, as of the filing date, of the base station method now recited in claim 16.
Claims 17-19 depend from one of the independent claims, thus carry the same issues as described above, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds discussed above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. — The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6 and 16-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, said claim recites in part “segmenting a nominal repetition into and a second PUSCH actual repetition after …; and transmitting second PUSCH actual repetition in the second fixed …” The second underlined limitation is introduced without a definite article, “the”. The omission of the definite article causes an antecedent basis issue. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 3-6, these claims depend from claim 1, thus carry the same indefiniteness issue as discussed above, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding claim 16, said claim recites a method at a base station, and the method requires “segmenting a nominal repetition into at least the first PUSCH actual repetition before … and the second PUSCH actual repetition after …”. The claim should make clear whether “segmenting” means the BS: (1) configures/schedules segmentation, (2) derives or determines segmentation from configured resources, (3) identifies received signal portions as segments after the fact; or (4) physically causes the UE’s nominal repetition to be divided.
The subsequent “determining whether” language suggests the intended operation may be a BS side classification/association of known actual PUSCH transmissions rather than an instruction that actively divides the nominal repetition. It so, “determining a segmentation of” or “determining that a nominal repetition is segmented into” would more clearly describes the BS’s role.
Regarding claims 17-19, these claims depend from claim 16, thus carry the same indefiniteness issue as discussed above, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds.
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(s) 7-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 2023/0189338, “Singh”) in view of Wang et al. (US 2020/0052828, “Wang”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Kumagai unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 7, a method of wireless communication by a user equipment (UE) operating in frame-based equipment (FBE) mode, comprising:
transmitting, to a base station (See Fig. 4 for PUSCH in the first COT and an idle period.), a first physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) repetition prior to an idle period (See Fig. 4 for PUSCH Rep #1 prior to the idle period in the first FFP.) in a first fixed frame period (See Fig. 1 for the first FFP.);
segmenting a nominal PUSCH repetition based on the idle period to determine actual PUSCH repetitions ([0068 and Fig. 4] “FIG. 4 is a timing diagram illustrating the segmented part of a transport block that occurs over the idle period and resources meant for gNB-initiation of the COT that is not transmitted, according to a particular embodiments. As illustrated in FIG. 4, the transmission (PUSCH transport block) is segmented into three repetitions, Rep #1, Rep #2 and Rep #3.”) scheduled in a second fixed frame period that occurs immediately after the idle period (See Fig. 4 for PUSCH Rep #3, and [0068] “Rep #2 occurs over the Idle period plus the resource meant for gNB-COT initiation in the next FFP, and Rep #3 occurs in the COT of next FFP after gNB-initiation.” Note that Singh does not use word of ‘actual’. This will be discussed in view of Wang.); and
dropping all subsequent actual PUSCH repetitions scheduled in the second fixed frame period ([0071] “only repetitions that can be transmitted in the current COT are transmitted, while all other repetitions that would occur within or after invalid symbols/resources and/or in the subsequent FFP are not transmitted, i.e., Rep #1 is transmitted, while Rep #and Rep #3 are not transmitted.”).
It is noted that while disclosing configuration information related to COT as well as UL transmissions, Singh does not specifically teach about actual PUSCH repetitions. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Wang as follows;
actual PUSCH repetitions ([Wang, 0034] “the repetition sequence RS comprises the repetitions R1, R2 and R3, each of which requires two time points to be transmitted. In this example, the processor 211 may postpone the repetition R3 because the symbol location corresponding to the repetition R3 is unusable in the time slot 10”).
A PHOSITA would have been motivated to implement Wang’s boundary/unusable symbol repetition handling in Singh’s FBE idle period schedule because both references concern PUSCH repetition sequences whose transmissions encounter time-domain resources in which transmission cannot properly occur. Applying Wang’s known postponement / drop handling to Singh’s Rep #2 / Rep #3 situation would predictably avoid a UE attempting to transmit a PUSCH repetition in, through, or as a consequence of an idle period and would reduce unnecessary UE transmission activity.
Regarding claim 8, the method of claim 7, in which the first fixed frame period is a first base station fixed frame period and the second fixed frame period is a second base station fixed frame period ([0068] “Rep #2 occurs over the Idle period plus the resource meant for gNB-COT initiation in the next FFP, and Rep #3 occurs in the COT of next FFP after gNB-initiation.”).
Claim(s) 9-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 2023/0189338, “Singh”) in view of Wang et al. (US 2020/0052828, “Wang”) and further in view of Li et al. (US 2021/0084683, “Li”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Kumagai unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 9, it is noted that while disclosing configuration information related to COT as well as UL transmissions, Singh does not specifically teach about UE’s FFP. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Li as follows;
the method of claim 7, in which the first fixed frame period is a first UE fixed frame period and the second fixed frame period is a second UE fixed frame period (See [Li, Fig. 16]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Kumagai by using the features of Li in order to effectively provide uplink transmissions in frame-based equipment in unlicensed bands such that “determine a first portion of the COT for a downlink transmission from the BS and a second portion of the COT for an uplink transmission to the BS, wherein the COT includes a gap between the first and second portions of the COT” [Li, 0005].
Regarding claim 10, it is noted that while disclosing configuration information related to COT as well as UL transmissions, Kumagai does not specifically teach about an orphan symbol for dropping uplink. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Wang as follows;
the method of claim 9, in which the dropping of all subsequent PUSCH repetitions is based on the first actual PUSCH repetition including an orphan symbol, which is scheduled at a beginning of the second UE fixed frame period ([Wang, 0034] “the repetition sequence RS comprises the repetitions R1, R2 and R3, each of which requires two time points to be transmitted. In this example, the processor 211 may postpone the repetition R3 because the symbol location corresponding to the repetition R3 is unusable in the time slot 10 (i.e., the time point 106 arranged to the semi-static flexible symbol F and the time point 107 arranged to the downlink symbol D).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Kumagai by using the features of Wang in order to improve conventional uplink repetitions such that “The processor may also be configured to schedule the repetition sequence on a time slot or on a plurality of consecutive time slots, and at least one of the plurality of consecutive time slots is arranged to at least two of the plurality of repetitions.” [Wang, 0004].
Tentative Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-6 and 16-19 appear to contain allowable subject matters underlined below pending on satisfactory of overcoming above 112 rejection and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the respective base claims and any intervening claims.
1. A method of wireless communication by a user equipment (UE) operating in frame-based equipment (FBE) mode, comprising:
transmitting, to a base station, during a shared base station first channel occupancy time (COT), a first physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) actual repetition prior to an idle period in a first fixed frame period of the base station;
attempting to detect a downlink signal during a predetermined number of invalid symbols occurring at a beginning of a second fixed frame period of the base station that occurs immediately after the idle period;
segmenting a nominal repetition into at least the first PUSCH actual repetition before the idle period and a second PUSCH actual repetition after the idle period and the invalid symbols; and
transmitting second PUSCH actual repetition in the second fixed frame period after the invalid symbols and the idle period, in response to detecting the downlink signal and in response to a processing timeline being satisfied, the second PUSCH actual repetition starting at a beginning of an actual repetition that satisfies the processing timeline after the downlink signal is detected, the processing timeline corresponding to detection and decoding of the downlink signal and preparation for uplink transmission by the UE.
Regarding claim 16, the claim contains similar features as recited in claim 1, thus is objected with allowable subject matter for the same reason as stated above.
Regarding claims 3-6 and 17-19, these claims depend from claims 1 and 16, respectively, and thus are objected for the same reason stated above for claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry H. Kim whose telephone number and email address are as follows; 571-272-5009, harry.kim2@uspto.gov.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from www.uspto.gov. For questions or assistance, 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.
/HARRY H KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights