DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claims filed on 7 June 2024 and Information Disclosure Statements filed on 25 January 2025, 3 June 2025, and 18 September 2025.
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 statements (IDSs) submitted on 25 January 2025, 3 June 2025, and 18 September 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 were originally filed on 7 June 2024.
Claims 17 and 19 have been canceled and the Abstract, Specification, and claims 1, 3-6, 18, and 20-22 have been amended by Preliminary Amendments filed on 7 June 2026.
Claims 1-16, 18, and 20-22 remain pending for examination.
Priority
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application Nos. PCT/CN2022/139275, filed 15 December 2022, and CN 202111535363.1, filed 15 December 2021, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior applications. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
Specifically, prior Application Nos. PCT/CN2022/139275, filed 15 December 2022, and CN 202111535363.1, filed 15 December 2021 do not appear to disclose wherein “a number of available or valid symbol(s) of the first slot is greater than or equal to a number of symbol(s) indicated for each transmission or each repetition transmission.” Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claims are supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation “or valid” in prior Application Nos. PCT/CN2022/139275, filed 15 December 2022, and CN 202111535363.1, filed 15 December 2021. Therefore, the effective filing of the claims as they are currently written is the date on which the preliminary amendments were filed, which was also the same day in which the instant application entered the national stage via 371 from PCT/CN2021/139275, which was 7 June 2024.
If applicant were to delete the subject matter at issue (i.e., “or valid”) from the independent claims, then the effective filing date would be the same as the date on which PCT/CN2021/139275 was filed, which is 15 December 2022, at least until the foreign priority claim to CN 202111535363.1 is perfected, such as by certifying that the English disclosure of the instant application is a true translation of CN 202111535363.1. See MPEP § 213.04. However, attempting to perfect the foreign priority claim without deleting the subject matter at issue will not result in making the effective filing date of the instant application be that of the original filing date of CN 202111535363.1, which is 15 December 2021. Therefore, until “or valid” is deleted from the pending claims, the claims’ effective filing date is 7 June 2024, the date the pending claims of the instant application were actually filed.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-6, 10, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 3, line 3 — instances “available resource” should be preceded by “an” or “the”, or instances of “available resource” should be pluralized;
Regarding Claim 4, line 3 — instances “available resource” should be preceded by “an” or “the”, or instances of “available resource” should be pluralized;
Regarding Claim 5, line 14 — “meet PUSCH transmission PUSCH repetition transmission” should read as “meet PUSCH transmission or PUSCH repetition transmission”; and
Regarding Claim 6, lines 3, 6 — instances “available resource” should be preceded by “an” or “the”, or instances of “available resource” should be pluralized;
Regarding Claim 10, lines 9 and 10 — “resource” and “cancelled resource” should be preceded by “a” or “the”, or instances of “resource” and/or “cancelled resource” should be pluralized, and lines 5-8 and 10-13 — instances of “corresponding PUSCH transmission” and “corresponding PUSCH repetition transmission” should be preceded by “a” or “the”, or instances of instances of “corresponding PUSCH transmission” and “corresponding PUSCH repetition transmission” should be pluralized;
Regarding Claim 14, line 10 — “resource” should be preceded by “a” or be pluralized, lines 6-8 and 12-14 — instances of “corresponding PUSCH transmission” and “corresponding PUSCH repetition transmission” should be preceded by “a” or “the”, or instances of instances of “corresponding PUSCH transmission” and “corresponding PUSCH repetition transmission” should be pluralized;
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-16, 18, and 20-22 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: receiving, generating or otherwise obtaining an indication for each transmission or each repetition transmission indicating a number of symbol(s).
Additionally, the term “available slot” in claim 1is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “available slot” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In view of the Specification, specifically ¶ 29, "there is lack of relevant definitions and processing methods for the available slot." Thus, merely using the term "available slot" is apparently admitted to be undefined in claim 1 not only by the original disclosure of the instant application but also in the art. Thus, whether a slot is “available” appears to encompass degrees of availability, which appear to be admitted undefined.
Finally, the terms “available" and "valid” in claim 1 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “available" and "valid” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Whether a symbol is available or valid may be determined based on an enumerable number of ways. The specification may disclose at last one example of determining whether a symbol is available. See dependent claim 2. However, independent claim 1 is not limited to either the features of dependent claim 2 or example(s) provided in the original disclosure of the instant application. Even if the Specification provided a special definition for an "available symbol", such a definition would still fail to define a "valid symbol".
Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite, because:
claim 1 is missing an essential step provided for how a number of symbols is indicated for each transmission or each repetition transmission,
“available slot” is admittedly undefined relative term of degree as used in claim 1, and
“available or valid symbol(s)” is also an undefined relative term of degree as the claims are currently written.
Regarding Claims 2-16, by virtue of depending on claim 1, claims 2-16 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1. Even though claim 2 may define how an “available symbol” is determined, neither claim 2 nor any of claims 3-16 provide the indicated omitted essential step or define how a “valid symbol” is determined.
Regarding Claim 5, at lines 9-10 — “counting in one repetition transmission for a corresponding first slot” appears to be missing necessary terms defining what is being counted, and where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “PUSCH transmission [or] PUSCH repetition transmission” in claim 5 is used by the claim to mean “PUSCH transmission or PUSCH repetition transmission requirement(s),” while the accepted meaning is “PUSCH transmission or PUSCH repetition transmission.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. The term “counting in one repetition transmission” in claim 5 is used by the claim to mean “incrementing a count of repetition transmissions,” while the accepted meaning is “recording a count in a single repetition transmission.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Finally, claim 5 recites the limitation "resource" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “resource” in line 15 of claim 5 may refer to the “available resource” of claim 4 upon which claim 5 depends, or to a resource that is not necessarily the “available resource” of claim 4.
Regarding Claim 6, the term “available resource” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “available resource” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding Claim 9, the term “PUSCH transmission [or] PUSCH repetition transmission” in claim 9 is used by the claim to mean “PUSCH transmission or PUSCH repetition transmission requirement(s),” while the accepted meaning is “PUSCH transmission or PUSCH repetition transmission.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. The term “counting in one repetition transmission” in claim 9 is used by the claim to mean “incrementing a count of repetition transmissions,” while the accepted meaning is “recording a count in a single repetition transmission.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Finally, claim 9 recites the limitation "resource" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “resource” in line 10 of claim 9 may refer to the “available resource” of claim 6 upon which claim 9 depends, or to a resource that is not necessarily the “available resource” of claim 6.
Regarding Claim 10, “corresponding PUSCH transmission or corresponding PUSCH repetition transmission” may refer to the PUSCH transmission or PUSCH repetition transmission being performed when the claimed first cancellation indication (CI) is received, or a PUSCH transmission or PUSCH repetition transmission indicated by the first CI that may be different from the PUSCH transmission or PUSCH repetition transmission being performed when the first CI is received. The term “counting in one repetition transmission” in claim 10 is used by the claim to mean “incrementing a count of repetition transmissions,” while the accepted meaning is “recording a count in a single repetition transmission.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Regarding Claims 11-12, by virtue of depending on claim 10, claims 11-12 inherit the deficiencies of claim 10 and do not appear to cure any of those deficiencies in addition to the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which claims 11-12 ultimately depend.
Regarding Claim 14, the term “counting in one repetition transmission” in claim 14 is used by the claim to mean “incrementing a count of repetition transmissions,” while the accepted meaning is “recording a count in a single repetition transmission.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Regarding Claim 16, the term “counting in one repetition transmission” in claim 16 is used by the claim to mean “incrementing a count of repetition transmissions,” while the accepted meaning is “recording a count in a single repetition transmission.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Regarding Claims 18 and 20-22, though of varying scope, the limitations of claims 18 and 20 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 1, and are rejected under the same reasoning, and claims 21-22 inherit the deficiencies of the claims upon which they depend and fail to cure those deficiencies as indicated above in relation to claim 2 and the other dependent claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding Claim 8, “in a case that” is alternative language that renders “the first slot(s) and the available resource of the first slot(s) are determined based on the uplink slot(s) and the uplink symbol(s) in the uplink slot(s) indicated in the configuration information of the TDD and the second SFI” optional, although it is explicitly required by claim 6, upon which claim 8 depends by way of depending on claim 7. Therefore, claim 8 does not appear to require all of the features of the claims upon which claim 8 depends. Therefore, claim 8 fails to include all of the limitation of claim 7 upon which claim 8 depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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)(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.
Claims 1, 10-12, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 2024/0022384, hereinafter Liu).
Regarding Claim 1, Liu discloses a method for uplink transmission, applied to a first terminal, the method comprising:
determining first slot(s) (Figs. 8, 13, ¶¶ 162, 166, 198, 205, 242, 251-253, and 257 disclose a UE receiving a slot format and PUSCH parameters from a network device, and the UE determining a first resource in a first slot or determining slots based on the slot format and PUSCH parameters), wherein
each first slot represents an available slot for Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) transmission or PUSCH repetition transmission (¶ 167 discloses the first slot as a UL slot or special (DL-to-UL) slot; ¶¶ 169-170 describe the UE determining a slot for PUSCH according to time domain parameters and DCI for scheduling the PUSCH; ¶¶ 171-183 disclose various cases in which a first slot of N slots is determined, where N is greater than one), and a number of available or valid symbol(s) of the first slot is greater than or equal to a number of symbol(s) indicated for each transmission or each repetition transmission (¶¶ 183 discloses first slots of N slots are N slots that start from a start slot and including a quantity of available symbols greater than or equal to a fifth threshold, which may be determined by the network device and the terminal through negotiation; ¶¶ 18, 36, 55, 72, 263 and 266 disclose sending, through the communication unit when a quantity of available symbols in an ith slot in the N slots is greater than or equal to a third threshold, the data in the ith slot, where a value of i is 1, 2, . . . , or N (i.e., a number of symbols indicated for each transmission or each repetition transmission), wherein the third threshold may be determined by the network device and terminal through negotiation — thus, the fifth threshold of ¶ 183 and the third threshold of ¶¶ 18, 36, 55, 72, 263, and 266 may be the same threshold).
Regarding Claim 10, Liu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
in a case that a first cancellation indication (CI) is received when performing the PUSCH transmission or the PUSCH repetition transmission based on the determined first slot(s),
cancelling corresponding PUSCH transmission or corresponding PUSCH repetition transmission, and counting in one repetition transmission for corresponding PUSCH transmission or corresponding PUSCH repetition transmission; or
performing PUSCH transmission or PUSCH repetition transmission only on a part of resource,
wherein cancelled resource indicated by the first CI overlaps with corresponding PUSCH transmission or corresponding PUSCH repetition transmission, or overlaps with slot(s) of corresponding PUSCH transmission or corresponding PUSCH repetition transmission (see MPEP § 2111, specifically § 2111.04 — the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met — here, the term “in a case that” in “in a case that a first cancellation indication (CI) is received when performing the PUSCH transmission or the PUSCH repetition transmission based on the determined first slot(s)” renders the limitations that follow as contingent on whether a CI is received as the claim is currently written, and since Liu discloses embodiments wherein CI not received as cited above, the instant claim is obvious in view of the prior art as relied upon in the prior art rejection of the parent claim).
Regarding Claim 11, Liu discloses the method of claim 10, wherein cancelled symbols indicated by the first CI comprises a first symbol, a second symbol and symbol(s) between the first symbol and the second symbol, wherein the first symbol represents a last symbol of received Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) carrying the first CI, and the second symbol represents a first symbol after elapsing a processing delay and a time offset (see MPEP § 2111, specifically § 2111.04 — the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met — here, the term “in a case that” in “in a case that a first cancellation indication (CI) is received when performing the PUSCH transmission or the PUSCH repetition transmission based on the determined first slot(s)” renders the limitations that follow as contingent on whether a CI is received as the claim is currently written, and since Liu discloses embodiments wherein CI not received as cited above, the instant claim is obvious in view of the prior art as relied upon in the prior art rejection of the parent claim).
Regarding Claim 12, Liu discloses the method of claim 10, wherein Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) carrying the first CI does not need to be sent before first Downlink Control Information (DCI) or PDCCH carrying the first CI does not need to be received by the first terminal before first DCI, wherein the first DCI is used for indicating PUSCH transmission or PUSCH repetition transmission (see MPEP § 2111, specifically § 2111.04 — the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met — here, the term “in a case that” in “in a case that a first cancellation indication (CI) is received when performing the PUSCH transmission or the PUSCH repetition transmission based on the determined first slot(s)” renders the limitations that follow as contingent on whether a CI is received as the claim is currently written, and since Liu discloses embodiments wherein CI not received as cited above, the instant claim is obvious in view of the prior art as relied upon in the prior art rejection of the parent claim).
Regarding Claims 18 and 20, though of varying scope, the limitations of claims 18 and 20 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 1, and are rejected under the same reasoning.
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 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.
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.
Claims 2-5 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claims 1 and 20 above, and further in view of Rudolf et al. (US 2023/0276438, hereinafter Rudolf).
Regarding Claim 2, Liu discloses the method of claim 1.
Liu may not explicitly disclose wherein the available symbol(s) of the first slot exclude:
a symbol carrying a type 0-Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) Common Search Space (type 0-PDCCH CSS); and/or
a flexible symbol carrying a Synchronization Signal Block (SSB).
However, in analogous art, Rudolf discloses wherein the available symbol(s) of the first slot exclude:
a symbol carrying a type 0-Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) Common Search Space (type 0-PDCCH CSS) (¶ 103 discloses that for operation in unpaired spectrum, a UE determines that a symbol(s) indicated by pdcch-ConfigSIB1 in MIB for a CORESET for Type0-PDCCH CSS set are considered as invalid symbol(s) for PUSCH repetition Type B transmission); and/or
a flexible symbol carrying a Synchronization Signal Block (SSB).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Rudolf to modify Liu in order to determine a symbol carrying a type0-PDCCH CSS. One would have been motivated to do this, because where a UE determines time resources, such as slots and symbols, symbols may be determined to be allowed/available/valid or dis-allowed/unavailable/invalid for PUSCH transmission or PUSCH repetition to increase UL spectral efficiency (SE) and UL peak throughput for UEDs in good link conditions without sacrificing the achievable UL radio range for UEs in bad link conditions (or vice versa) (Rudolf Fig. 8, ¶¶ 170-173, especially ¶ 173).
Regarding Claim 3, Liu discloses the method of claim 1.
Liu may not explicitly disclose wherein determining the first slot(s) comprises:
determining the first slot(s) and available resource of the first slot(s) based on uplink slot(s) and uplink symbol(s) indicated by configuration information of Time Division Duplexing (TDD).
However, in analogous art, Rudolf discloses wherein determining first slot(s) comprises:
determining the first slot(s) and available resource of the first slot(s) based on uplink slot(s) and uplink symbol(s) indicated by configuration information of Time Division Duplexing (TDD) (¶¶ 103 and 186 disclose a UE determining invalid symbols for PUSCH repetition Type B transmission and determining slots for PUSCH transmission of a PUSCH repetition scheduled by DCI based on and according to tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon and tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationDedicated information).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Rudolf to modify Liu in order to determine a symbol carrying a type0-PDCCH CSS. One would have been motivated to do this, because where a UE determines time resources, such as slots and symbols, symbols may be determined to be allowed/available/valid or dis-allowed/unavailable/invalid for PUSCH transmission or PUSCH repetition to increase UL spectral efficiency (SE) and UL peak throughput for UEDs in good link conditions without sacrificing the achievable UL radio range for UEs in bad link conditions (or vice versa) (Rudolf Fig. 8, ¶¶ 170-173, especially ¶ 173).
Regarding Claim 4, Liu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the first slot(s) comprises:
determining the first slot(s) and available resource of the first slot(s) based on uplink slot(s), uplink symbol(s), flexible slot(s) and flexible symbol(s) indicated by configuration information of Time Division Duplexing (TDD) (¶¶ 103, 186 and 188 disclose a UE determining invalid symbols for PUSCH repetition Type B transmission and determining slots for PUSCH transmission of a PUSCH repetition scheduled by DCI based on and according to tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon and tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationDedicated information, wherein for a set of symbols of a slot that are indicated to a UE as flexible by tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon, a slot is not counted in the number of N*K slots for PUSCH transmission of a PUSCH repetition when the indicated txType indicates ‘U-only’ — since a slot inherently includes symbols, disclosure of a flexible slot is understood to also disclose flexible symbols).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Rudolf to modify Liu in order to determine a symbol carrying a type0-PDCCH CSS. One would have been motivated to do this, because where a UE determines time resources, such as slots and symbols, symbols may be determined to be allowed/available/valid or dis-allowed/unavailable/invalid for PUSCH transmission or PUSCH repetition to increase UL spectral efficiency (SE) and UL peak throughput for UEDs in good link conditions without sacrificing the achievable UL radio range for UEs in bad link conditions (or vice versa) (Rudolf Fig. 8, ¶¶ 170-173, especially ¶ 173).
Regarding Claim 5, Liu-Rudolf disclose the method of claim 4.
Liu discloses wherein when receiving a first Slot Format Indication (SFI), the method further comprises:
assuming that the first SFI does not affect the determination of the first slot(s) by the first terminal; and/or
not expecting that the first SFI changes or affects the determination of the first slot(s) by the first terminal; and/or
in a case that the first SFI indicates flexible symbol(s) are updated to downlink symbol(s) and if uplink symbol(s) after updating and/or flexible symbol(s) after updating cannot meet PUSCH transmission or PUSCH repetition transmission, counting in one repetition transmission for a corresponding first slot, and not performing PUSCH transmission or PUSCH repetition transmission on the corresponding first slot; and/or
in a case that the first SFI indicates flexible symbol(s) are updated to downlink symbol(s) and if the uplink symbol(s) after updating and/or the flexible symbol(s) after updating cannot meet PUSCH transmission PUSCH repetition transmission, performing PUSCH transmission or PUSCH repetition transmission only on a part of resource (see MPEP § 2111, specifically § 2111.04 — the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met — here, the term “when” in “wherein when receiving a first Slot Frame Indication (SFI)” renders the limitations that follow as contingent on whether a first SFI is received as the claim is currently written, and since Liu discloses embodiments wherein SFI is not received as cited above, the instant claim is obvious in view of the prior art as relied upon in the prior art rejection of the parent claim).
Regarding Claim 21, Liu discloses the first terminal of claim 18.
Liu may not explicitly disclose wherein the available symbol(s) of the first slot exclude:
a symbol carrying a type 0-Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) Common Search Space (type 0-PDCCH CSS); and/or
a flexible symbol carrying a Synchronization Signal Block (SSB).
However, in analogous art, Rudolf discloses wherein the available symbol(s) of the first slot exclude:
a symbol carrying a type 0-Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) Common Search Space (type 0-PDCCH CSS) (¶ 103 discloses that for operation in unpaired spectrum, a UE determines that a symbol(s) indicated by pdcch-ConfigSIB1 in MIB for a CORESET for Type0-PDCCH CSS set are considered as invalid symbol(s) for PUSCH repetition Type B transmission); and/or
a flexible symbol carrying a Synchronization Signal Block (SSB).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Rudolf to modify Liu in order to determine a symbol carrying a type0-PDCCH CSS. One would have been motivated to do this, because where a UE determines time resources, such as slots and symbols, symbols may be determined to be allowed/available/valid or dis-allowed/unavailable/invalid for PUSCH transmission or PUSCH repetition to increase UL spectral efficiency (SE) and UL peak throughput for UEDs in good link conditions without sacrificing the achievable UL radio range for UEs in bad link conditions (or vice versa) (Rudolf Fig. 8, ¶¶ 170-173, especially ¶ 173).
Regarding Claim 22, Liu-Rudolf disclose the first terminal of claim 21.
Lui may not explicitly disclose wherein the first processor is specifically configured to:
determine the first slot(s) and available resource of the first slot(s) based on uplink slot(s) and uplink symbol(s) indicated by configuration information of Time Division Duplexing (TDD).
However, in analogous art, Rudolf discloses wherein determining first slot(s) comprises:
determining the first slot(s) and available resource of the first slot(s) based on uplink slot(s) and uplink symbol(s) indicated by configuration information of Time Division Duplexing (TDD) (¶¶ 103 and 186 disclose a UE determining invalid symbols for PUSCH repetition Type B transmission and determining slots for PUSCH transmission of a PUSCH repetition scheduled by DCI based on and according to tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon and tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationDedicated information).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Rudolf to modify Liu in order to determine a symbol carrying a type0-PDCCH CSS. One would have been motivated to do this, because where a UE determines time resources, such as slots and symbols, symbols may be determined to be allowed/available/valid or dis-allowed/unavailable/invalid for PUSCH transmission or PUSCH repetition to increase UL spectral efficiency (SE) and UL peak throughput for UEDs in good link conditions without sacrificing the achievable UL radio range for UEs in bad link conditions (or vice versa) (Rudolf Fig. 8, ¶¶ 170-173, especially ¶ 173).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Go et al. (US 2023/0147579, hereinafter Go).
Regarding Claim 13, Liu discloses the method of claim 1.
Liu may not explicitly disclose wherein a priority of PUSCH transmission or PUSCH repetition transmission is a high priority, and when the first slot(s) is determined, the method further comprises:
determining a third symbol, a fourth symbol and/or a fifth symbol as available symbol(s), wherein
the third symbol represents a symbol in which a Sounding Reference Signal (SRS) can be configured or is configured, the fourth symbol represents a symbol indicated for PUSCH transmission or PUSCH repetition transmission and a network side triggers the first terminal to send an aperiodic SRS on the fourth symbol, and the fifth symbol represents a symbol indicated for PUSCH transmission or PUSCH repetition transmission and a transmission of a periodic and/or a semi-persistent SRS on the fifth symbol overlaps with corresponding PUSCH transmission or corresponding PUSCH repetition transmission.
However, in analogous art, Go discloses wherein a priority of PUSCH transmission or PUSCH repetition transmission is a high priority (¶¶ 187 and 189 disclose a retransmission PUSCH having a higher priority than an additional SRS), and when the first slot(s) is determined, the method further comprises:
determining a third symbol, a fourth symbol and/or a fifth symbol as available symbol(s) (Table 7 and ¶¶ 318-322 disclose a UE determining an SRS transmission slot for SRS transmission of an additional (aperiodic) SRS and/or one or more SRS transmission symbols in the corresponding slot in accordance with Proposal 3, wherein transmission of the SRS may be delayed in order to avoid the collision; ¶¶ 187 and 189 disclose Proposal 3 wherein a PUSCH repetition transmission has a higher priority than an additional SRS colliding with the PUSCH repetition transmission), wherein
the third symbol represents a symbol in which a Sounding Reference Signal (SRS) can be configured or is configured (Id.), the fourth symbol represents a symbol indicated for PUSCH transmission or PUSCH repetition transmission and a network side triggers the first terminal to send an aperiodic SRS on the fourth symbol (Id.), and the fifth symbol represents a symbol indicated for PUSCH transmission or PUSCH repetition transmission and a transmission of a periodic and/or a semi-persistent SRS on the fifth symbol overlaps with corresponding PUSCH transmission or corresponding PUSCH repetition transmission (¶¶ 387 and 411 disclose wherein the SRS may be a periodic transmission, semi-persistent transmission, or an aperiodic transmission).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Go to modify Liu in order to handle collision between PUSCH transmission or PUSCH repetition transmission and SRS transmission. One would have been motivated to do this, because even though a collision between an SRS and an uplink channel may occur, by defining an operation for resolving the collision, a collision between an SRS and an uplink channel can be prevented (Go ¶ 11).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Xiong et al. (US 2024/0224271), at Figs. 14, 15, ¶¶ 33, 136, 139 and other associated description, discloses dropping a transmission due to a collision with flexible symbols that are used for SSB transmission — thus, indicating that a flexible symbol used for transmitting an SSB is unavailable or invalid; and
Takahashi et al. (US 2023/0058331), at Fig. 4, ¶¶ 33-39, 84-86 and other associated description, discloses cell-specific TDD-UL-DL configuration information including indication of a number of full UL slots with only UL symbols and a number of UL symbols following the full UL slots; Fig. 4 and ¶¶ 84-86 disclose PUSCH transmission control without application of an invalid symbol pattern and where SFI notified by a higher layer parameter and information related to the invalid symbol pattern is notified, wherein the UE control use of a symbol designated as flexible by the SFI for the PUSCH transmission;
Yang et al. (US 2022/0124745), at Figs. 5-8 and associated description, discloses a UE identifying two or more scheduled uplink transmissions, such as a PUSCH transmission or repetition transmission, with different priorities that overlap in at least one slot, wherein at least one of the two or more uplink transmissions is scheduled for repetitive transmission across at least a first slot and a second slot, and performing one or more collision resolution procedures in at least one of the first slot and the second slot for the two or more scheduled uplink transmissions with the different priorities that overlap in the at least one slot to resolve collisions for at least one of one or more low priority scheduled uplink transmissions of the two or more scheduled uplink transmissions and one or more high priority scheduled uplink transmissions of the two or more scheduled uplink transmissions.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of the action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS R CAIRNS whose telephone number is (571)270-0487. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM ET M-F.
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, MARCUS SMITH can be reached at (571) 270-1096. 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.
/Thomas R Cairns/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights