DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
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.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. In particular, this Application claims a domestic benefit to two US provisional applications, received on 4 Aug 2023 and 21 Sept 2023, respectively.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements, submitted on 22 Jul 2024, 31 Jan 2025, and 11 Mar 2025, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
The objection to the Specification is overcome by the amendments accompanying the Rule 111 Reply.
Regarding the obviousness rejection, the argument contained in the Reply are moot in light of a new grounds of rejection. In particular, Xu (citation below) is now cited for the concept of using a one-bit indicator field to identify which of two LCID tables to use. Xu is entitled to a foreign priority date that is in between the filing dates of the two provisional applications to which this Application claims a domestic benefit. However, support for the most recent claim amendment finds written description in the later-filed provisional application. Provisional ‘721, pgs. 21-25. As a result, the claimed invention is entitled to an effective filing date of 11 September 2023. Therefore, Xu, which has a foreign priority date of 11 August 2023, constitutes prior art to the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 21-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20260052537) in view of Xu (US 20260181062).
Regarding claims 21 and 33, Li teaches a method and an electronic device comprising: at least one processor including processing circuitry; and memory storing instructions (Li, figure 2 – elements of UE 204), wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to perform the method, comprising:
receive, from a base station, configuration information associated with a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) repetition for a message 4 (Msg4) hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ-ACK) (Li, ¶¶108, 125 – UE receives SIB, which configures the number of PUCCH repetitions; Li, ¶74 – PUCCH repetition may be for msg4 HARQ-ACK);
transmit, to the base station, a message 3 (Msg3) including a first field indicating a logical channel identifier (LCID) value . . . for the Msg4 HARQ-ACK . . . (Li, ¶¶10, 92 – UE transmits msg3 PUSCH with LCID field; Li, ¶135 – common PUCCH resource configuration provides the repetition number for PUCCH carrying HARQ-ACK for msg4); and
after transmission of the Msg3, receive, from the base station, a Msg4. Li, figure 4 (after transmitting “Msg3: RRCSetupRequest,” the UE receives “Msg:4 RRCSetup” from gNB).
Li does not explicitly teach (1) an LCID “that identifies common control channel (CCCH) data for the PUCCH repetition” or (2) a Msg3 including “a second field indicating use of a particular table among a plurality of tables, the particular table including LCID values associated with the PUCCH repetition of the Msg4 HARQ-ACK.” However, Xu teaches (1) a CCCH message that includes a LCID field (Xu, ¶101), where LCID fields correspond to HARQ-ACK repetition on a PUCCH. Xu, ¶161, claim 9. Regarding (2), Xu also teaches fields in addition to an LCID field. Xu, figure 3 (e.g. R fields). Xu also teaches a plurality of tables. Xu, ¶107 (table 1), ¶110 (table 2). Xu uses a 1-bit first field to indicate whether to use the first or second table. Xu, ¶148; Xu, ¶137 (first field maybe an R field as shown in figure 3). At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the fields, taught by Xu, within Msg3, taught by Li, in order to increase the indication space for LCID without increasing the size of the MAC header. Xu, ¶123.
Regarding claim 27, Li teaches a method performed by a base station in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
transmitting, to a terminal, configuration information associated with a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) repetition for a message 4 (Msg4) hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ-ACK) (Li, ¶¶108, 125 – BS sends SIB, which configures the number of PUCCH repetitions; Li, ¶74 – PUCCH repetition may be for msg4 HARQ-ACK);
receiving, from the terminal, a message 3 (Msg3) indicating a logical channel identifier (LCID) value . . . for the Msg4 HARQ-ACK (Li, ¶¶10, 92 – BS receives msg3 PUSCH with LCID field; Li, ¶135 – common PUCCH resource configuration provides the repetition number for PUCCH carrying HARQ-ACK for msg4); and
after receiving the Msg3, transmitting, to the terminal, a Msg4. Li, figure 4 (after receiving “Msg3: RRCSetupRequest,” the gNB transmits “Msg:4 RRCSetup”).
Li does not explicitly teach (1) an LCID “that identifies common control channel (CCCH) data for the PUCCH repetition” or (2) a Msg3 including “a second field indicating use of a particular table among a plurality of tables, the particular table including LCID values associated with the PUCCH repetition of the Msg4 HARQ-ACK.” However, Xu teaches (1) a CCCH message that includes a LCID field (Xu, ¶101), where LCID fields correspond to HARQ-ACK repetition on a PUCCH. Xu, ¶161, claim 9. Regarding (2), Xu also teaches fields in addition to an LCID field. Xu, figure 3 (e.g. R fields). Xu also teaches a plurality of tables. Xu, ¶107 (table 1), ¶110 (table 2). Xu uses a 1-bit first field to indicate whether to use the first or second table. Xu, ¶148; Xu, ¶137 (first field maybe an R field as shown in figure 3). At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the fields, taught by Xu, within Msg3, taught by Li, in order to increase the indication space for LCID without increasing the size of the MAC header. Xu, ¶123.
Regarding claims 22, 28, and 34, the combination of Li and Xu also teaches wherein the configuration information is included in a system information block (SIB). Li, ¶¶94, 108.
Regarding claims 23, 29, and 35, the combination of Li and Xu also teaches wherein the configuration information includes information indicating a threshold for determining a report of the LCID value. Li, ¶95 (an RSRP threshold is used request repetition).
Regarding claims 24, 30, and 36, the combination of Li and Xu also teaches transmitting, to the base station, the Msg3 in case that a measured reference signals received power (RSRP) is lower than the threshold. Li, ¶95 (1 bit in the MAC subheader of msg3 is used to request repetition when the measured RSRP is less than the RSRP threshold).
Regarding claims 25, 31, and 37, the combination of Li and Xu also teaches wherein the LCID value includes at least one of: a first LCID value indicates a CCCH of size 48 bits for the PUCCH repetition of the Msg4 HARQ-ACK of a reduced capability (RedCap) user equipment (UE), a second LCID value indicates a CCCH of size 64 bits for the PUCCH repetition for the Msg4 HARQ-ACK of the RedCap UE, a third LCID value indicates a CCCH of size 48 bits for the PUCCH repetition of the Msg4 HARQ-ACK except for the RedCap UE, a fourth LCID value indicates a CCCH of size 64 bits for the PUCCH repetition of the Msg4 HARQ-ACK except for the RedCap UE, a fifth LCID value indicates a CCCH of size 48 bits for the PUCCH repetition of the Msg4 HARQ-ACK of an enhanced RedCap (eRedCap) UE, or a sixth LCID value indicates a CCCH of size 64 bits for the PUCCH repetition of the Msg4 HARQ-ACK of the eRedCap UE. Xu, e.g. table 1 (codepoint/index 35).
Regarding claims 26, 32, and 38, the combination of Li and Xu also teaches wherein the plurality of tables comprises a first table and a second table (Xu, ¶¶107, 110 – tables 1 and 2); and the second field is a one-bit field indicating use of the first table. Xu, ¶¶137, 148 (1-bit R field).
Conclusion
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is Ye, which has priority between the filing dates of Application’s two provisional applications. As a result, Ye may be prior art based which provisional application provides support for the claimed invention.
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 BENJAMIN S LAMONT whose telephone number is (571)270-7514 and email address is benjamin.lamont@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 for using EFS or mail, but not email to authorize electronic communications). The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am to 3pm EST.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/Benjamin Lamont/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights