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 .
Initial Examination
Applicant's submission filed on 06/17/24 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement 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 § 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 6 and 13 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. Specifically, SSB should be spelled out prior to first use.
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)(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 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-16, 18-19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Awoniyi-Oteri (US 20210084546 A1, cited by Applicant of Record).
Regarding claim 1, Awoniyi-Oteri discloses a transmission determining method [fig. 3], comprising:
receiving, by a terminal [fig. 3 no. 120], first signaling, the first signaling being used for determining an uplink transmission operation of the terminal on a first Transmission and Reception Point (TRP) (Multiplex communication with source and target TRPs (i.e., at least first signaling determines UL operation on at least a first TRP) [fig. 3 no. 335-345]); and
determining, by the terminal (UE determines [par. 0068]), the uplink transmission operation of the terminal on the first TRP according to the first signaling in a case that an overlapping time domain resource is present between an uplink transmission of the terminal on the first TRP and a downlink transmission of the terminal on a second TRP, wherein the terminal is connected to a plurality of TRPs comprising the first TRP and the second TRP (The UE considers the overlap between TRP (i.e., first and second TRPs), including slots (i.e., time domain resource) and UL/DL combinations (i.e., overlap between UL and DL), when determining to drop one or more communications [par. 0068, 72, 43], where the TRPs share scheduling info (e.g., UL/DL channel occasions, timing) to reduce/prevent those collisions (i.e., previously mentioned collisions included overlapping time domain resources) [par. 0076, 67]).
Regarding claim 8, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is from the perspective of the network and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 15, is is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in apparatus claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Awoniyi-Oteri further discloses a terminal [fig. 3 no. 120, 2 no. 120], comprising a processor [fig. 2 no. 280] and a memory [fig. 2 no. 282] storing a program or instructions executable on the processor [fig. 3 no. 335-355].
Regarding claim 20, is is substantially similar to claim 8, except is in apparatus claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Awoniyi-Oteri further discloses a network-side device [fig. 1 no. 110, 130, 3 no. 305, 310, 2 no. 110], comprising a processor [fig. 2 no. 240] and a memory [fig. 2 no. 242] storing a program or instructions executable on the processor [fig. 3 no. 335-355].
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Awoniyi-Oteri discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Awoniyi-Oteri further discloses wherein the first signaling indicates at least one of:
priority information, a processing indication during resource overlapping (UE drops communication based on config or info received from the TRP (i.e., first signaling received) [par. 0068, 73, 58]), a Physical Cell Identity (PCI), and simultaneous uplink transmissions on a plurality of antenna panels of the terminal.
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Awoniyi-Oteri discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Awoniyi-Oteri further discloses wherein the uplink transmission operation comprises one of:
transmitting an uplink transmission on the first TRP [par. 0068]; and
refraining from transmitting an uplink transmission on the first TRP [par. 0068].
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Awoniyi-Oteri discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Awoniyi-Oteri further discloses wherein said refraining from transmitting the uplink transmission on the first TRP comprises at least one of:
discarding/cancelling/ignoring the uplink transmission on the first TRP (Drop (i.e., discard/cancel/ignore) one of the two or more DL/UL communications (i.e., UL) for two or more TRPs (i.e., first TRP) [par. 0068]);
receiving a downlink transmission on the second TRP;
in a case that the uplink transmission on the first TRP comprises a repetition transmission, counting, or refraining from counting, a number of repetitions in a slot in which the overlapping time domain resource is located;
in a case that the uplink transmission on the first TRP comprises a Transport Block over Multiple Slots (TBoMS), counting, or refraining from counting, a number of transmission occasions/slots in slots in which the overlapping time domain resource is located; and
in a case that the terminal is configured with a repetition transmission based on counting of available slots, determining the slot in which the overlapping time domain resource is located to be an unavailable slot.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Awoniyi-Oteri discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Awoniyi-Oteri further discloses:
wherein the downlink transmission comprises an SSB transmission (Sync signal block (i.e., SSB) [par. 0073]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awoniyi-Oteri as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively, and further in view of Zhang (WO 2022073187 A1, cited by Applicant of Record).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Awoniyi-Oteri discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Awoniyi-Oteri discloses wherein the first signaling … through at least one of: a Transmission Configuration Indicator (TCI) state or a TCI state list [par. 0059]; a correspondence between TCI states and PCIs; and a correspondence between TCI state lists and PCIs, and as discussed above, Awoniyi-Oteri does not explicitly disclose indicates the PCI. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Zhang.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhang discloses:
indicates the PCI [pg. 5 par. 3 (P5:P3)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Awoniyi-Oteri with Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of multi TRP operation [Zhang Abstract].
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awoniyi-Oteri as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively, and further in view of Deghel (US 20220322357 A1, cited by Applicant of Record).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Awoniyi-Oteri discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Awoniyi-Oteri discloses wherein the uplink transmission comprises, as discussed above, Awoniyi-Oteri does not explicitly disclose at least one of: a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) repetition transmission; a TBoMS uplink transmission; a TBoMS-based PUSCH repetition transmission; and a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) repetition transmission. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Zhang.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhang discloses at least one of:
a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) repetition transmission;
a TBoMS uplink transmission;
a TBoMS-based PUSCH repetition transmission; and
a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) repetition transmission [par. 0006].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Awoniyi-Oteri with Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of transmitting various control info to the BS [Zhang par. 0027].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Walter J DiVito whose telephone number is (571)272-2556. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8 am - 6 pm (PST).
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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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.
/WALTER J DIVITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights