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)(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, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Hong He et al. (WO 2022/077293 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, “A terminal device, comprising a processor configure to perform an operation of:” — He discloses UE 110 with processor 205 executing RACH monitoring engine 235. (He ¶¶ 0028–0030, Fig. 2.) “receiving a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) transmission with repetitions in a random access procedure, based on a number of repetitions of the PDSCH transmission” — The UE monitors and receives the Msg2 random access response on PDSCH at the repetition number indicated by the gNB. The gNB transmits that number of Msg2 repetitions. (He ¶¶ 0040, 0044–0046, 0062, Fig. 12.)
“a PDSCH transmission scheduled by downlink control information (DCI) with cyclic redundancy check (CRC) scrambled by a random access radio network temporary identifier (RA-RNTI)” — He schedules the repeated Msg2 PDSCH by DCI format 1_0 whose CRC is scrambled by RA-RNTI. This is one expressly recited type in the “at least one” group. (He ¶¶ 0046–0047, Fig. 5.)
Regarding Claim 4,“determining the number of repetitions of the PDSCH transmission based on system information broadcast by a network device” — He discloses SIB1 separately providing a maximum repetition number for Msg2 or Msg4 per PRACH group and a first option in which the repetition number is fixed to that SIB-signaled maximum. This maps the first disjunct. (He ¶¶ 0044–0045.)
Regarding Claim 5,“determining the number of repetitions of the PDSCH transmission based on a set of M candidate values for the number of repetitions of the PDSCH transmission, wherein M is a positive integer” — He gives repetition codepoints {1, 2, 4} for the DCI indication. The UE selects the indicated actual number from those three values; M is 3. This maps the third disjunct and does not assume a SIB-configured candidate set. (He ¶¶ 0046–0047, Fig. 5.)
Regarding Claim 6, “the number of repetitions of the PDSCH transmission is indicated by an information field in DCI” — He uses reserved bits in DCI format 1_0 to indicate the actual Msg2 repetition number to the UE. (He ¶¶ 0046–0047, Fig. 5.)
Regarding Claim 9, “the information field comprises a repetition number field, and the repetition number field is used to indicate the number of repetitions of the PDSCH transmission” — He expressly labels repetition-number field 505 in DCI format 1_0; its X bits indicate the actual repetition number. (He ¶¶ 0046–0047, Fig. 5.)
Regarding Claim 10, “the number of repetitions of the PDSCH transmission is K” — He describes Msg2 repetition number K and repetitions in the time domain. (He ¶¶ 0046, 0062, Fig. 12.)
“receiving the PDSCH transmission with repetitions in K consecutive slots” — He places Msg2 repetitions across consecutive slots, monitored by the UE. (He ¶¶ 0040, 0062, Fig. 12.)
“same symbol allocation is used for the PDSCH transmission in the K consecutive slots” — He expressly applies the same symbol allocation across consecutive slots associated with the same spatial relation. This is the first alternative; the other “at least one” characteristics need not be separately met. (He ¶ 0062, Fig. 12; claim 13 of He.)
Regarding Claim 11, “a redundancy version corresponding to a 1st transmission opportunity of repetitions of the PDSCH transmission is determined” — He determines RV for the kth Msg2 repetition, k in 0 through K−1; k=0 is the first opportunity. (He ¶ 0064, Fig. 13.)
“an indication of a redundancy version field in the DCI” — He bases the RV for the kth repetition on the RV field of scheduling DCI format 1_0. This meets the second disjunct. (He ¶ 0064, Fig. 13; claim 14 of He.)
Regarding Claim 13, “A network device, comprising a processor configured to perform an operation of:” — He discloses gNB 120A with processor 305 and RACH procedure engine 335. (He ¶¶ 0033–0035, Fig. 3.)
“performing a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) transmission with repetitions in a random access procedure based on a number of repetitions of the PDSCH transmission” — The gNB determines and transmits repeated Msg2 RAR on PDSCH with the indicated repetition count. (He ¶¶ 0035, 0044–0046, 0062.)
“a PDSCH transmission scheduled by downlink control information (DCI) with cyclic redundancy check (CRC) scrambled by a random access radio network temporary identifier (RA-RNTI)” — The scheduling DCI format 1_0 for repeated Msg2 has CRC scrambled by RA-RNTI; this is the first alternative in the claimed group. (He ¶¶ 0046–0047, Fig. 5.)
Regarding Claim 16, “determining the number of repetitions of the PDSCH transmission based on N, wherein Nis a positive integer” — He’s gNB determines an actual positive repetition count from 1, 2, or 4 and transmits that many PDSCH repetitions. The third disjunct is mapped; a system-information absence and default need not be proved. (He ¶¶ 0044–0047, 0062.)
Regarding Claim 17, “determining the number of repetitions of the PDSCH transmission based on a set of M candidate values for the number of repetitions of the PDSCH transmission, wherein M is a positive integer” — He’s gNB selects an actual count from {1, 2, 4}; the set has M=3 positive-integer members. This is the third disjunct. (He ¶¶ 0046–0047, Fig. 5.)
Regarding Claim 18, “the number of repetitions of the PDSCH transmission is K” — He determines K Msg2 repetitions. (He ¶¶ 0044–0046, 0062.)
“performing the PDSCH transmission with repetitions in K consecutive slots” — He transmits Msg2 repetitions in consecutive slots. (He ¶ 0062, Fig. 12.)
“same symbol allocation is used for the PDSCH transmission in the K consecutive slots” — He expressly reuses the same symbol allocation across consecutive slots with the same spatial relation. The first “at least one” characteristic suffices. (He ¶ 0062, Fig. 12; claim 28 of He.)
Regarding Claim 19,“a redundant version identifier corresponding to a 1st transmission opportunity of repetitions of the PDSCH transmission is determined” — He determines RV on the kth Msg2 repetition; k=0 corresponds to the first opportunity. (He ¶ 0064, Fig. 13.)
“an indication of a redundancy version field in the DCI” — He discloses determining the RV from the RV field of the scheduling DCI format 1_0, meeting the second alternative. (He ¶ 0064, Fig. 13; claim 29 of He.)
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 2, 3, 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Hong He et al. (WO 2022/077293 A1).
Regarding Claim 2,“requesting the PDSCH transmission with repetitions” — He teaches UE selection and transmission of a PRACH group mapped to a Msg2 or Msg4 coverage recovery level and maximum repetition number. He does not expressly name this an affirmative request for PDSCH repetitions. The proposed inference is that selecting and transmitting the mapped PRACH resource conveys the need for the corresponding repeated response. (He ¶¶ 0043–0045, Fig. 4.)
Reason to modify or combine: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the treat the disclosed PRACH group selection as an implicit request, and to use its already disclosed time or preamble distinction as the request identifier, because He expressly maps the selected PRACH resource to the response coverage and repetition level. This uses the gNB’s existing PRACH detection to select the response count without a separate uplink message. This reasoning requires the selected resource to be understood as a request for repetitions; He does not use that phrase.
Regarding Claim 3, “requesting the PDSCH transmission with repetitions based on a specific random access channel occasion (RO) for sending a PRACH” — He discloses time division multiplexing of distinct PRACH groups mapped to different response repetition levels. Selecting a group in its time resource identifies the response level. He does not expressly say “RO” or call the selection a request; the claimed RO association is an obvious implementation of that time division mapping. (He ¶¶ 0043–0044, Fig. 4.)
“requesting the PDSCH transmission with repetitions based on a specific PRACH preamble” — Alternatively, He differentiates PRACH groups by cyclic shift. A preamble using the selected shift carries the group selection that the gNB maps to the repetition level. This alternative also depends on the implicit-request reading. (He ¶¶ 0043–0044, Fig. 4.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to treat the disclosed PRACH group selection as an implicit request, and to use its already disclosed time or preamble distinction as the request identifier, because He expressly maps the selected PRACH resource to the response coverage and repetition level. This uses the gNB’s existing PRACH detection to select the response count without a separate uplink message. This reasoning requires the selected resource to be understood as a request for repetitions; He does not use that phrase.
Regarding Claim 14, “receiving a request from a terminal device for the PDSCH transmission with repetitions” — He’s gNB receives the selected PRACH group mapped to response-repetition level and selects that response count. He does not expressly call the PRACH transmission a request for PDSCH repetitions; this ground adopts the implicit-request implementation. (He ¶¶ 0035, 0043–0045, Fig. 4.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to treat the disclosed PRACH group selection as an implicit request, and to use its already disclosed time or preamble distinction as the request identifier, because He expressly maps the selected PRACH resource to the response coverage and repetition level. This uses the gNB’s existing PRACH detection to select the response count without a separate uplink message. This reasoning requires the selected resource to be understood as a request for repetitions; He does not use that phrase.
Regarding Claim 15, “receiving the request from the terminal device for the PDSCH transmission with repetitions based on a specific RO for sending a PRACH” — He’s time-multiplexed PRACH groups give the gNB a distinguishable arrival occasion to infer the response repetition level. The express RO/request association is a proposed implementation, not an express passage. (He ¶¶ 0043–0044, Fig. 4.)
“receiving the request from the terminal device the PDSCH transmission with repetitions based on a specific PRACH preamble” — Alternatively, different cyclic shifts distinguish the groups; the received preamble group identifies the associated repetition level. This rests on the same implicit-request construction. (He ¶¶ 0043–0044, Fig. 4.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to treat the disclosed PRACH group selection as an implicit request, and to use its already disclosed time or preamble distinction as the request identifier, because He expressly maps the selected PRACH resource to the response coverage and repetition level. This uses the gNB’s existing PRACH detection to select the response count without a separate uplink message. This reasoning requires the selected resource to be understood as a request for repetitions; He does not use that phrase.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Hong He et al. (WO 2022/077293 A1) in view of Jing Xu and Yanan Lin (WO 2020/133036 A1).
Regarding Claim 7,“the information field is an MCS field” — He discloses a DCI repetition-number field made from reserved bits, but does not disclose placing that number in an MCS field. Repeat Transmission discloses reusing MCS indication bits for repetition information. (He ¶¶ 0046–0047, Fig. 5; Repeat Transmission ¶¶ 0074–0075.)
“the MCS field is used to indicate an MCS corresponding to a scheduled PDSCH” — Repeat Transmission divides the five MCS-indication bits: two indicate repetition and the lower three continue to indicate MCS. The proposed combination retains the field’s MCS scheduling function for He’s PDSCH. (Repeat Transmission ¶¶ 0075–0076; He ¶¶ 0046–0047.)
He places the count in reserved DCI bits. Repeat Transmission teaches using the MCS field itself while retaining an MCS indication Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute that disclosed field encoding into He’s DCI count signaling to conserve control bits while preserving the scheduled PDSCH MCS; the count and MCS portions retain their disclosed functions and yield a predictable decoding arrangement.
Regarding Claim 8, “a most significant bit (MSB) of the MCS field indicates the number of repetitions ... and a least significant bit (LSB) of the MCS field indicates an MCS” — The first alternative is relied upon. In the combined arrangement, the high-order MCS-field portion indicates the repetition count and the low-order portion identifies the MCS for the scheduled PDSCH. The phrase “MSB” and “LSB” is read here as identifying the portions at the respective ends of the field, with the high-order subfield carrying repetition information and the low-order subfield carrying the MCS index; the reference uses multiple bits in each portion. (Repeat Transmission ¶¶ 0074–0075; He ¶¶ 0046–0047.)
“the LSB of the MCS field indicates a used MCS index from a set of candidiate MCS indexes” — Repeat Transmission divides five MCS-indication bits into two repetition bits and three lower MCS bits. The lower portion selects one of eight entries of a reduced MCS table. Thus the low-order portion provides the used MCS index from the candidate set. (Repeat Transmission ¶¶ 0075–0076, Table 3.)
“in a case that the set of candidiate MCS indexes is not configured, a default set is used” — Repeat Transmission teaches that the reduced MCS table may be agreed by protocol or configured through RRC signaling. Its protocol-agreed table supplies an available candidate set even when no table is separately configured. In the proposed random-access combination, that agreed set functions as the default when configuration is absent. This conditional use is an obvious implementation, not an express statement in the reference. (Repeat Transmission ¶¶ 0076, 0079; He ¶ 0044.)
He broadcasts PRACH-group response-repetition parameters before access and indicates an actual repetition count in reserved DCI bits. Repeat Transmission supplies a DCI MCS-field partition and a protocol-agreed reduced MCS table. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use that partition for He’s repetition indication while retaining MCS selection, and to use the protocol-agreed table if the network has not configured a candidate set. A terminal performing initial random access must decode the scheduling DCI before a dedicated RRC configuration is necessarily available; an agreed table avoids additional signaling and gives both ends a common MCS interpretation. The high and low portions retain their taught functions. (He ¶¶ 0044–0047; Repeat Transmission ¶¶ 0063–0067, 0074–0079.)
Claims 12, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Hong He et al. (WO 2022/077293 A1) in view of MolavianJazi et al. (US 2021/0076384 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, “a PDSCH transmission scheduled by DCI with CRC scrambled by a TC-RNTI is a PDSCH transmission comprising a terminal device contention resolution identify” — He supplies the repeated PDSCH random-access setting but does not disclose this specific TC-RNTI contention-resolution message. MolavianJazi discloses a TC-RNTI-scrambled DCI scheduling PDSCH containing UE contention-resolution identity after Msg3. (He ¶¶ 0044–0046; MolavianJazi ¶ 0259.)
“in response to the PDSCH transmission comprising the terminal device contention resolution identify, sending a HARQ-ACK in a PUCCH” — MolavianJazi expressly discloses the UE sending HARQ-ACK in PUCCH in response to the contention-resolution PDSCH. (MolavianJazi ¶¶ 0259–0260.)
“a minimum time interval between a last symbol of a last repetition of the PDSCH transmission and a 1st symbol of the PUCCH carrying corresponding HARQ-ACK information is equal to a third duration” — MolavianJazi sets this minimum interval to N_T,1 + 0.5 ms after the last repetition. The slot carrying PUCCH is chosen to satisfy the interval. (MolavianJazi ¶ 0260.)
“the third duration is determined based on the PDSCH processing time” — MolavianJazi defines N_T,1 from N1 symbols corresponding to the UE’s PDSCH processing time. (MolavianJazi ¶ 0260.)
He teaches repeated Msg2 and describes Msg4 coverage recovery, but does not give the specific TC-RNTI contention-resolution PUCCH feedback timing. MolavianJazi addresses the same four-step random-access sequence and supplies that timing after the last PDSCH repetition. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the stated PDSCH-processing interval for He’s Msg4 contention-resolution response so the UE can decode the final repetition before sending HARQ-ACK, and the gNB can expect feedback at a valid time. Both procedures retain their established functions.
Regarding Claim 20, “a PDSCH transmission scheduled by DCI with CRC scrambled by a TC-RNTI is a PDSCH transmission comprising a terminal device contention resolution identify” — He supplies the gNB and repeated random-access PDSCH. MolavianJazi discloses TC-RNTI DCI scheduling a PDSCH containing the UE contention-resolution identity. (He ¶¶ 0034–0035, 0044–0046; MolavianJazi ¶ 0259.)
“receiving a HARQ-ACK carried in a PUCCH” — MolavianJazi discloses the gNB receiving HARQ-ACK in PUCCH after repeated random-access PDSCH, and the UE transmitting that feedback for the contention-resolution PDSCH. (MolavianJazi ¶¶ 0205, 0259–0260.)
“a minimum time interval between a last symbol of a last repetition of the PDSCH transmission and a 1st symbol of the PUCCH carrying corresponding HARQ-ACK information is equal to a third duration” — MolavianJazi sets the minimum last-repetition-to-PUCCH interval to N_T,1 + 0.5 ms; the gNB schedules or receives feedback in the corresponding slot. (MolavianJazi ¶ 0260.)
“the third duration is determined based on the PDSCH processing time” — N_T,1 is defined by the PDSCH processing duration N1. (MolavianJazi ¶ 0260.)
He teaches repeated Msg2 and describes Msg4 coverage recovery, but does not give the specific TC-RNTI contention-resolution PUCCH feedback timing. MolavianJazi addresses the same four-step random-access sequence and supplies that timing after the last PDSCH repetition. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the stated PDSCH-processing interval for He’s Msg4 contention-resolution response so the UE can decode the final repetition before sending HARQ-ACK.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGEL T BROCKMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached at 571-270-7191. 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.
/ANGEL T BROCKMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2412
