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 .
Priorities and Examiner Remarks
This application is a National Stage entry of PCT/JP2022/037063 (international filing date: 10/04/2022) that claims foreign priority to application of JAPAN: 2022-007977 (filed 01/21/2022).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14-26 are 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. The claim(s) 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 14, after careful review of applicant’s specification, the examiner cannot find any support for the amended limitation “…a first case of the plurality of cases is no repetition…”, as newly recited in claim 14. To be more specific, there is no mention in the specification of a plurality of cases, much less a first case of the plurality of cases is no repetition. Clarification is respectfully requested. Same or similar problem appears in claim 20 which would also need clarification.
Claim 26, after careful review of applicant’s specification, the examiner cannot find any support for the amended limitation “…wherein the field related to the downlink assignment index is reserved bits in a case where the capability information indicates that repetition of the uplink control signal is not supported…”, as newly recited in claim 26. To be more specific, there is no mention in the specification in such a way that in a case where the capability information indicates that repetition of the uplink control signal is not supported, the field related to the downlink assignment index is reserved bits. Clarification is respectfully requested.
Claims 15-19 and 21-25, these claims are rejected based on their dependency from the rejected base claim 14 and 20 respectively.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 14-17, 19-23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20220232639 A1, hereinafter Wang), in view of DAI et al. (WO 2022061881 A1, hereinafter DAI, NOTE: corresponding application US 20230269778 A1 being used below for rejection mapping purposes).
Regarding claim 14,
Wang teaches a terminal, comprising (Wang, in general, see sections including, but not limited to, paragraphs 105-114, which including fig. 3; see also at least claims 1-3 for relevant details):
a receiver, which, in operation, receives control information indicating a number of repetitions of an uplink control signal, in a random access procedure (Wang, see at least para. 109, “...a number of PUCCH repetitions from the one or more numbers of configured PUCCH repetitions is indicated by the DCI format 1_0 scheduling Msg4 for HARQ-ACK transmission for Msg4...”, note that Msg3 and/or Msg4 are part of random access procedure),
the control information being received in downlink control information (DCI) scheduling a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) reception that includes UE contention resolution identity (Wang, see at least para. 109 in view of both para. 43 and 52 , “...a number of PUCCH repetitions from the one or more numbers of configured PUCCH repetitions is indicated by the DCI format 1_0 scheduling Msg4 for HARQ-ACK transmission for Msg4...”, note that para. 43 discloses that DCI, amongst other things, is used for scheduling PDSCH; and para. 52 discloses “...PUCCH transmission for HARQ-ACK for message 4 (Msg4) is transmitted by the UE if it received a UE Contention Resolution Identity MAC CE in Msg4...”);
and
circuitry, which, in operation, determines the number of repetitions of the uplink control signal based on the control information (Wang, see at least para. 110-111, “...In one embodiment, the number of PUCCH repetitions is indicated by an existing field, e.g., downlink assignment index (DAI) field...”),
wherein the number of repetitions of the uplink control signal is determined based on (i) a field related to a downlink assignment index (DAI) included in the control information and (ii) capability information (Wang, see at least para. 111 and 70, “...the number of PUCCH repetitions is indicated by an existing field, e.g., downlink assignment index (DAI) field...”, note that para. 70 discloses that support of repetition based on the proposed method(s) may be subject to UE capability, which is reported to the network or the gNB via UE capability signaling)
wherein the field related to the DAI indicates one case selected from a plurality of cases (Wang, see at least para. 111, “...the number of PUCCH repetitions is indicated by an existing field, e.g., downlink assignment index (DAI) field. In one embodiment, the value of 0 of the existing field indicates the first value of the one or more of the configured numbers of PUCCH repetitions, and the first value equals to 1...”)
wherein the capability information indicates whether repetition of the uplink control signal is supported, wherein the capability information is transmitted to a base station (Wang, see at least para. 70, note that para. 70 discloses that support of repetition based on the proposed method(s) may be subject to UE capability, which is reported to the network or the gNB via UE capability signaling)
and
wherein a second case of the plurality of cases is a first number of repetitions (Wang, see at least para. 111, “...the number of PUCCH repetitions is indicated by an existing field, e.g., downlink assignment index (DAI) field. In one embodiment, the value of 0 of the existing field indicates the first value of the one or more of the configured numbers of PUCCH repetitions, and the first value equals to 1...”).
Wang does not specifically teach wherein a first case of the plurality of cases is no repetition.
DAI teaches wherein a first case of the plurality of cases is no repetition (DAI, in general, see sections including but not limited to paragraphs 99-114 and fig. 17, in particular, see fig. 17 and para. 114, e.g. either one or both of Alt 1 and Alt 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate DAI into Wang to provide advantages such as improved reliability of message decoding and reduced complexity of decoding (see para. 5).
Regarding claim 15,
Wang in view of DAI teaches claim 14.
Wang further teaches wherein the control information is indicated in a field related to a downlink assignment index (Wang, see at least para. 110-111, “...In one embodiment, the number of PUCCH repetitions is indicated by an existing field, e.g., downlink assignment index (DAI) field...”).
Regarding claim 16,
Wang in view of DAI teaches claim 15.
Wang further teaches wherein the field related to the downlink assignment index comprises reserved bits (Wang, see at least para. 110-111, “...In one embodiment, the number of PUCCH repetitions is indicated by an existing field, e.g., downlink assignment index (DAI) field. In one embodiment, the value of 0 of the existing field indicates the first value of the one or more of the configured numbers of PUCCH repetitions, and the first value equals to 1...”).
Regarding claim 17,
Wang in view of DAI teaches claim 15.
Wang further teaches wherein the circuitry, in operation, determines a number of repetitions of another uplink transmission based on another control information, the another control information being indicated in a field related to a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) of RAR (random access response) UL grant (Wang, see at least para. 107 in view of claims 1-3, “...the network device (e.g., gNB) may also configure multiple sets of PUSCH repetition configuration (i.e., each PUSCH repetition consists of one or more numbers of PUSCH repetitions). In one embodiment, the subset of bits of the MCS field may indicate a value from the one or more number of PUSCH repetitions configured by a PUSCH repetition configuration to be applied for Msg3 PUSCH transmission...”, note that claim 1 states that “...wherein the RAR message comprises an uplink grant that schedules a Message 3 (Msg3) PUSCH...”),
and
the field related to the downlink assignment index is different from the field related to the MCS of RAR UL grant (Wang, see at least para. 111 in view of para. 107 and claim 1, for one non-limiting example, RAR schedules Msg3, while DAI in DCI scheduling Msg4 for HARQ-ACK transmission for Msg4).
Regarding claim 19,
Wang in view of DAI teaches claim 14.
Wang further teaches wherein the circuitry, in operation, determines a number of repetitions of another uplink transmission based on another control information, the another control information being indicated in a field related to a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) of RAR (random access response) UL grant (Wang, see at least para. 107 in view of claims 1-3, “...the network device (e.g., gNB) may also configure multiple sets of PUSCH repetition configuration (i.e., each PUSCH repetition consists of one or more numbers of PUSCH repetitions). In one embodiment, the subset of bits of the MCS field may indicate a value from the one or more number of PUSCH repetitions configured by a PUSCH repetition configuration to be applied for Msg3 PUSCH transmission...”, note that claim 1 states that “...wherein the RAR message comprises an uplink grant that schedules a Message 3 (Msg3) PUSCH...”).
Regarding claims 20, 21, 22, 23, and 25, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19, respectively, except each of these claims is in method claim format.
Regarding claim 26,
Wang in view of DAI teaches claim 14.
Wang does not teach wherein the field related to the downlink assignment index is reserved bits in a case where the capability information indicates that repetition of the uplink control signal is not supported.
DAI teaches wherein the field related to the downlink assignment index is reserved bits in a case where the capability information indicates that repetition of the uplink control signal is not supported (DAI, see at least para. 109 of fig. 15 along with para. 114 and 94, for one non-limiting example, “...one or more (N) reserved bits of the Msg2 scheduling DCI may be repurposed as indication of transmission parameters (e.g., TBS scaling and/or repetition factor) for Msg4 PDSCH, as shown in FIG. 15...”, note that fig. 9 discloses various types of UEs co-exist).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate DAI into Wang to provide advantages such as improved reliability of message decoding and reduced complexity of decoding (see para. 5).
Claims 18 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of DAI, and further in view of YANG et al. (US 20210100004 A1, hereinafter YANG).
Regarding claim 18,
Wang in view of DAI teaches claim 14.
Wang in view of DAI does not teach wherein the control information is scrambled with a Temporary Cell-Radio Network Temporary Identifier (TC-RNTI).
YANG teaches wherein the control information is scrambled with a Temporary Cell-Radio Network Temporary Identifier (TC-RNTI) (YANG, see at least para. 84, “...the base station 105 may schedule Msg4 transmission using DCI format 1_0 with a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) scrambled using a temporary cell radio network temporary identifier (TC-RNTI),...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate YANG into Wang in view of DAI for coverage enhancement techniques are applied to certain transmissions, including PUCCH transmissions in order to improve coverage and reliability (see para. 30).
Regarding claim 24, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 18, except this claim is in method claim format.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2026 have been fully considered. Regarding independent claims 14 and 20, since applicant's amendment necessitated new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, previous Office action's rejections are moot. Accordingly, corresponding dependent claims have also been rejected in this Office action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 YEE F LAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7577. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. 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.
/YEE F LAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights