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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 – 2, 4, 6 – 7, 12 – 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sayed Hassan et al (US 2023/0344553).
Re claim 1, Sayed Hassan teaches of a terminal device (UE, #350, Fig.3 and #1504, Fig.15), comprising: at least one processor (#359, Fig.3); and at least one memory (#360, Fig.3) comprising computer program code (Paragraph 0100), the at least one memory and the computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the terminal device to perform: receiving, from a network device (#1502, Fig.15), a configuration for transmission of an uplink channel (#1508 and DCI, #1520, Fig.15), the configuration comprising a repetition factor set (repetition factor list, {K1, . . . , Kn}, Fig.15) and at least one parameter for determining a repetition factor from the repetition factor set (PRB bundle granularity, bitmap, Fig.15); determining the repetition factor from the repetition factor set based on the at least one parameter (Paragraphs 0221 – 0222); and performing the transmission of the uplink channel (PUSCH, #1524, Fig.15) according to the determined repetition factor (#1522, Fig.15).
Re claim 15, Sayed Hassan teaches of a network device (Network Node, #310, Fig.3 and #1502, Fig.15), comprising: at least one processor (#375, Fig.3); and at least one memory (#376, Fig.3) comprising computer program code (Paragraph 0100), the at least one memory and the computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the network device to perform: determining a configuration for transmission of an uplink channel (#1508 and DCI, #1520, Fig.15), the configuration comprising a repetition factor set (repetition factor list, {K1, . . . , Kn}, Fig.15) and at least one parameter for determining a repetition factor from the repetition factor set (PRB bundle granularity, bitmap, Fig.15); and transmitting, to a terminal device (UE, #350, Fig.3 and #1504, Fig.15), the configuration.
Re claims 2 and 16, Sayed Hassan teaches of wherein the at least one parameter comprises at least one duration value (repetition timer expires, Paragraph 0224).
Re claims 4 and 18, Sayed Hassan teaches of wherein the at least one duration value is one duration value corresponding to the repetition factor set (one duration value when n=1 in {K1, . . . , Kn}).
Re claims 6 and 20, Sayed Hassan teaches of wherein the repetition factor set is a vector of repetition factors ({K1, . . . , Kn}, Fig.15).
Re claim 7, Sayed Hassan teaches of wherein the repetition factor set comprises a single repetition factor (when n=1 in {K1, . . . , Kn} ).
Re claim 12, Sayed Hassan teaches of wherein the configuration is received via a radio resource control signaling or a system information block (Paragraphs 0101, 0202 and 0221).
Re claim 13, Sayed Hassan teaches of wherein the configuration is specific to the terminal device or specific to a cell the terminal device is associated with (Paragraphs 0214 – 0224 and Fig.15).
Re claim 14, Sayed Hassan teaches of wherein the uplink channel is at least one of the following: physical uplink control channel, physical uplink shared channel, physical random access channel, and sounding reference signal (PUSCH, Fig.15).
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 3, 5, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sayed Hassan.
Re claims 3 and 17, Sayed Hassan teaches all the limitations of claims 2 and 16 as well as a MIB that provides a number of RBs in the system bandwidth and a system frame number (SFN) (Paragraph 0093). Sayed Hassan does not specifically mention of wherein the at least one duration value is in terms of system frame number. However, one skilled in the art would have needed information such as the system frame number to identify the PRB bundles for each frame that need to be retransmitted.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one duration value be in terms of system frame number so as to accurately retransmit the PRB bundles having a corresponding repetition factor of an identified frame.
Re claims 5 and 19, Sayed Hassan teaches all the limitations of claims 2 and 16 as well as wherein the at least one duration value is a plurality of duration values associated with the repetition factor set (each duration value is associated with a repetition factor, Paragraph 0224). Sayed Hassan does not specifically mention of a plurality of duration values being a vector of duration values. However, one skilled in the art would have known that placing the plurality of duration values into a vector form would optimize processing performance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have placed the plurality of duration values into a vector form to optimize processing performance.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sayed Hassan in view of Nammi et al (US 2019/0334660).
Re claim 10, Sayed Hassan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as well as wherein the at least one parameter comprises a mapping between the repetition factor set and the at least one parameter (Paragraph 0222). However, Sayed Hassan does not specifically teach of the at least one parameter being at least one distance value between the terminal device and the network device.
Nammi teaches of a repetition factor being based on a distance of the user equipment device from the device (claim 2 of Nammi).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have considered the at least one parameter being at least one distance value between the terminal device and the network device so as to further improve uplink transmissions.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sayed Hassan in view of Zheng et al (US 2023/0370222).
Re claim 11, Sayed Hassan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as well as wherein the at least one parameter comprises a mapping between the repetition factor set and the at least one parameter (Paragraph 0222). However, Sayed Hassan does not specifically teach of the at least one parameter being at least one elevation angle value of the network device relative to the terminal device.
Zheng teaches of a mapping between the repetition factor set and at least one elevation angle value of the network device relative to the terminal device, and the repetition factor is determined based on an elevation angle value of the network device relative to the terminal device (Paragraph 0028).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have considered the at least one parameter being at least one elevation angle value of the network device relative to the terminal device so as to further improve uplink transmissions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 – 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARISTOCRATIS FOTAKIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at (571) 272-3044. 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.
/ARISTOCRATIS FOTAKIS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights