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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated 08/26/2024, 02/05/2025, 03/17/2025, 04/21/2025, 08/12/2025, 01/21/2026, 05/11/2026 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. 609 C(2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
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.
Independent Claims
Claim(s) 1, 8, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Morozov (US-20210385834).
As to claim 1, 8, 15: Morozov teaches a method of wireless communication, comprising: sending, by a base station to a terminal, transmission configuration information comprising uplink configuration information of an uplink channel resource ([0020, 24, 33, 39] In some embodiments, the access node 108 may provide the UE 104 with configuration information with respect to the preconfigured resource pools for UL transmission) and downlink configuration information of a downlink control channel search space ([0026, 29] In some embodiments, a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) search space may be configured for monitoring for DCI), wherein information carried in a downlink channel of the downlink control channel search space includes indication information indicating the terminal to perform at least one of operations including: i) sending a random access signal in a random access channel; ii) falling back to a radio resource control (RRC) idle state; iii) exiting an uplink transmission mode configured through the transmission configuration information; iv) releasing at least one of the uplink channel resource or a search space resource configured through the transmission configuration information; or v) performing an uplink transmission based on a next available uplink channel resource ([0026, 122, 136] the DCI may either confirm a successful UL transmission happened in the corresponding resource pool … or request that the UL be re-transmitted by, for example, using a HARQ mechanism (via an UL grant)).
Dependent Claims
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Morozov (US-20210385834).
As to claim 2, 9, 16: Morozov teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the indication information is included in a downlink control information (DCI) ([0026, 52, 133]).
As to claim 3, 10, 17: Morozov teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the DCI further includes at least one of scheduling information ([0027]), information about a hybrid automatic repeat request-acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) of data sent in an uplink channel ([0026]); uplink transmission power adjustment information; an uplink grant (UL grant) ([0026, 136]); timing advanced (TA) update information; resource configuration information of an acknowledgement information for the DCI; or a downlink grant (DL grant).
As to claim 5, 12, 19: Morozov teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the DCI indicates that data sent in the uplink channel has been received upon satisfying i) a first condition that the DCI includes the uplink grant and ii) a second condition that a value of a field in the uplink grant being included in a first value set ([0029] “For NB-IoT systems, the UE 104 can monitor for DCI format N0 for any rescheduling UL grant. For NB-IoT systems, an explicit indication of positive acknowledgment to the PUSCH transmission (without any further scheduling of new or retransmission of PUSCH transport block) may also be realized by setting all fields in the DCI format N0 to zero except for the following: flag for N0/N1 differentiation; DCI subframe repetition number; and modulation and coding scheme: ACK can be indicated by setting MCS field to ‘1111,’ for example.”).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 11, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morozov (US-20210385834) in view Kim (US-20120287848).
As to claim 4, 11, 18: Morozov teaches the method of claim 2.
Morozov may not explicitly teach wherein the DCI has a format that allows the terminal to send the random access signal in the random access channel. However, Kim teaches wherein the DCI has a format that allows the terminal to send the random access signal in the random access channel ([0051, 58] For the RA procedure, the UE may transmit a predefined sequence as a preamble on a Physical Random Access CHannel (PRACH)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement RACH, taught by Kim, into the communication system, taught by Morozov, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and reduce latency. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Morozov and Kim in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 6, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morozov (US-20210385834) in view Chatterjee (WO-2018175446-A1), Loehr (US-20150304093)
As to claim 6, 13: Morozov teaches the method of claim 5.
Morozov may not explicitly teach wherein the field corresponds to an information element and the value of the field. However, Chatterjee teaches wherein the field corresponds to an information element and the value of the field ([0118, 194]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement IE, taught by Chatterjee, into the communication system, taught by Morozov, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and reuse DCI format. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Morozov and Chatterjee in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Morozov may not explicitly teach corresponds to an invalid resource allocation information of the uplink transmission. However, Loehr teaches corresponds to an invalid resource allocation information of the uplink transmission ([0238] “setting the RBA field to all ‘1’s, which is an invalid resource allocation”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement indicating invalid resource allocation, taught by Loehr, into the communication system, taught by Morozov, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and lower signaling overhead. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Morozov and Loehr in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 7, 14, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morozov (US-20210385834) in view Cao (US-20180199359), Jeon (US-20190132824).
As to claim 7, 14, 20: Morozov teaches the method of claim 1.
Morozov may not explicitly teach wherein the indication information further indicates that the terminal performs at least two of the operations simultaneously. However, Jeon teaches wherein the indication information further indicates that the terminal performs at least two of the operations ([0274] The DCI message may also be used for deactivation. When the UE receives a deactivation DCI, it stops transmitting on the grant free resources [0290] At step 3026 the BS may transmit a DCI for de-activation or release of the grant free transmission resource).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement multiple operations including exiting UL transmission mode and releasing resources, taught by Cao, into the communication system, taught by Morozov, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and transmit in the UL and release resources when they are not in use to allow other devices to use. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Morozov and Cao in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Morozov may not explicitly teach simultaneously. However, Jeon teaches simultaneously ([0280, 0366] the paired DL BWP and UL BWP may be activated simultaneously or near simultaneously such as within threshold time period).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement simultaneous operation, taught by Jeon, into the communication system, taught by Morozov, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and reduced signaling overhead . In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Jeon and Morozov in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW CHUNG SUK OH whose telephone number is (571)270-5273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12p-8p.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 5712727969. 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.
/ANDREW C OH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights