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 INTERPRETATION
Claim 45 recites “to transmit, responsive to a grant-free data transmission, a predefined signal to the base station using a predefined grant-free resource so that all of the certain UEs transmit the same signal on the same predefined grant-free resource” in lines 6-8.
The only limitation on “a certain number of the UEs” is that it be formed (in any way) to be capable of obtaining the result of all of the certain UEs transmit the same signal on the same predefined grant-free resource.
The “so that” clause in this case does not add a further limitation to the recited certain number of the UEs.
Claim 45 recites “wherein the BS is configured receive from the certain UEs the respective predefined signals on the predefined grant-free resource so as to detect that a grant-free transmission from the certain UEs occurs” in lines 9-11.
The only limitation on the base station is that it be formed (in any way) to be capable of obtaining the result of to detect that a grant-free transmission from the certain UEs occurs.
The “so as” clause in this case does not add a further limitation to the recited base station.
Claim 59 recites “to transmit, responsive to a grant-free data transmission, a predefined signal to the base station using a predefined grant-free resource so that all of the certain UEs transmit the same signal on the same predefined grant-free resource” in lines 4-7.
The only limitation on the method is that it be formed (in any way) to be capable of obtaining the result of all of the certain UEs transmit the same signal on the same predefined grant-free resource.
The “so that” clause in this case does not add a further limitation to the recited method.
Claim 59 recites “receiving, by the BS, from the certain UEs the respective predefined signals on the predefined grant-free resource so as to detect that a grant-free transmission from the certain UEs occurs” in lines 8-10.
The only limitation on the method is that it be formed (in any way) to be capable of obtaining the result of to detect that a grant-free transmission from the certain UEs occurs.
The “so as” clause in this case does not add a further limitation to the recited method.
See MPEP 2111.04
Claim Objections
Claims 1-60 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 2, it is suggested to replace a comma “,” with a colon “:” to differentiate between the preamble and the body of the claim.
Claim 1 recites “a base station” in line 3. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “a base station of the one or more base stations”.
Claims 2-25 recites “The user equipment” in line 1. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “The UE”.
Claim 7 recites “from first GF retransmission resource pool and from second GF retransmission resource pool” in lines 2-3. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “from the first GF retransmission resource pool and from the second GF retransmission resource pool”.
Claim 7 recites “group/service type” in line 5. It is suggested to clarify the use of words instead of “/”.
Claim 12 recites “group/service type” in line 2. It is suggested to clarify the use of words instead of “/”.
Claim 13 recites “a preconfigured time offset” in lines 1-2. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “the preconfigured time offset”.
Claim 13 recites “a random time offset” in line 2. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “the random time offset”.
Claim 21 recites “UE” in line 2. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “the UE”.
Regarding claim 21, it is suggested to insert a period “.” at the end of the claim.
Claim 24 recites “wireless communication network” in line 2. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “the wireless communication network”.
Claim 25 recites “the item/device” in lines 9-10. It is suggested to clarify the use of words instead of “/”.
Claim 26 recites “the UEs” in line 4. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “the one or more UEs”.
Claim 26 recites “configured receive” in line 8. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “configured to receive”.
Claims 27-41 recites “The base station” in line 1. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “The BS”.
Regarding claim 36, it is suggested to insert a period “.” at the end of the claim.
Regarding claim 42, line 4, it is suggested to replace a comma “,” with a colon “:” to differentiate between the preamble and the body of the claim.
Claim 42 recites “a base station” in line 2-3. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “a base station of the one or more base stations”.
Claims 43-44 recites “The user equipment UE” in line 1. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “The UE”.
Regarding claim 45, line 2, it is suggested to replace a comma “,” with a colon “:” to differentiate between the preamble and the body of the claim.
Claims 46-53 recites “The base station of claim” in line 1. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “The BS of claim”.
Claims 47 and 53 recite “and/or”. It is suggested to clarify the use of words instead of “/”.
Claim 50 recites “different for” in line 2. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “different from”.
Claim 51 recites “certain UEs” in line 4. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “the certain UEs”.
Claim 54 recites “comprising a one or more user devices, UEs, of claim 1, and a one or more base stations, BSs” in lines 1-2. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “comprising the UE and the one or more base stations of claim 1”.
Regarding claims 56-59, it is suggested to insert a colon “:” after the transitional phrase “comprising” to differentiate between the preamble and the body of the claims.
Claim 56 recites “a base station” in line 3. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “a base station of the one or more base stations”.
Claim 57 recites “the UEs” in line 4. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “the one or more UEs”.
Claim 57 recites “the BS station” in line 6. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “the BS”.
Claim 58 recites “a base station” in line 2. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “a base station of the one or more base stations”.
Claim 58 recites “a user equipment” in line 7. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “the user equipment”.
Claim 59 recites “the BS” in line 3. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “the base station”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-60 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a base station” in line 3. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “one or more base stations” in lines 1-2. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Regarding claims 7, 10, 15-16, 20, 23, 25, 38, 47 and 53, the phrase "e.g." renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the limitation(s) following the phrase "e.g." are not part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 15-16, 18 and 53, the phrase "like" renders the claims indefinite because the claims include elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claims unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 8 recites “at least one further GF retransmission resource pool” in line 2. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a first GF retransmission resource pool or second GF retransmission resource pool” in claim 6. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 15 recites “a further grant-free access occasion” in line 2. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a first grant-free access occasion or a second grant-free access occasion” in claim 14. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 15 recites “a further grant-free access occasion” in lines 5-6. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a further grant-free access occasion” in line 2. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 17 recites “one or more GF retransmission pools” in line 3. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a plurality of GF retransmission pools” in line 2. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 17 recites “the GF retransmission pool” in line 5. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “one or more GF retransmission pools” in line 3. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 17 recites “the retransmission pools” in line 8. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a plurality of GF retransmission pools” in line 2. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the RRC signaling" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the GF transmission pool" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the GF resource" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the certain UEs" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the grant free transmission" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 27 recites “the transmissions” in line 1. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “grant free transmissions” in claim 26. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the GF resource" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 30 recites “the transmissions” in line 2. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “grant free transmissions” in claim 26. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 31 recites “UE” in line 2. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “the certain UEs” in claim 26. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 42 recites “a plurality of UEs” in line 2. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “UEs” in line 2. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 42 recites “the base station” in lines 5-6. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “the serving base station” in lines 3-4. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 42 recites “all UEs” in line 9. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a plurality of UEs” in line 2. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 42 recites “the BS” in line 9. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “the serving base station” in lines 3-4. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 42 recites “a grant-free data transmission” in lines 9-10. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a grant-free data transmission” in line 5. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 42 recites “the same predefined signal” in line 10. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a predefined signal” in line 8. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 42 recites “the same predefined grant-free resource” in lines 10-11. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a predefined grant-free resource” in lines 8-9. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 42 recites “a grant-free transmission” in lines 12-13. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a grant-free transmission” in line 3. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 43 recites “the grant-free resource” in line 1. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a predefined grant-free resource” in claim 42 lines 8-9. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 44 recites “a predefined signal” in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a predefined signal” in claim 42. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 44 recites the limitation "the UE type" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 44 recites “UEs” in line 4. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a plurality of UEs” in claim 42 line 2. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 45 recites “one or more UEs” in line 3. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a plurality of UEs” in line 2. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 45 recites “the UEs” in line 4. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “one or more UEs” in line 3. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 45 recites “the certain UEs” in lines 7. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a certain number of the UEs” in line 4. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 45 recites “the same signal” in line 8. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a predefined signal” in line 6. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 45 recites “the same predefined grant-free resource” in line 8. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a predefined grant-free resource” in line 7. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 45 recites the limitation "the respective predefined signals" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 45 recites “a grant-free transmission” in lines 10-11. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a grant-free transmission” in line 5. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 46 recites “a grant-free transmission” in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a grant-free transmission” in claim 45. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 47 recites the limitation "the GF access" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 47 recites the limitation "the GF resources" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 48 recites “a grant-free transmission” in lines 2-3. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a grant-free transmission” in claim 45. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 48 recites “a grant-free transmission” in line 3. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a grant-free transmission” in claim 45. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 49 recites the limitation "the reception quality" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 50 recites “certain UEs” in line 1. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a plurality of UEs” in claim 45. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 50 recites the limitation "the received predefined signals and further predefined signals" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 51 recites “UEs” in line 3. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “the certain UEs” in claim 50. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 52 recites “a predefined signal” in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a predefined signal” in claim 45. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 52 recites the limitation "the UE type" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 52 recites the limitation "the UE" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 52 recites the limitation "the different predefined signals" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 56 recites “a base station” in line 3. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “one or more base stations” in line 3. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 57 recites the limitation "the certain UEs" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 57 recites “the grant free transmission” in lines 8-9. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “grant free transmissions” in line 8. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 58 recites “a plurality of UEs” in line 2. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “UEs” in line 2. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 58 recites “a user equipment” in line 5. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a plurality of UEs” in line 2. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 58 recites “the base station” in line 5. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “the serving base station” in line 3. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 58 recites “a grant-free data transmission” in line 7. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a grant-free data transmission” in line 5. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 58 recites “all UEs” in line 9. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a plurality of UEs” in line 2. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 58 recites “the BS” in line 9. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “the serving base station” in line 3. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 58 recites “a grant-free data transmission” in lines 9-10. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a grant-free data transmission” in line 5. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 58 recites “the same predefined signal” in line 10. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a predefined signal” in lines 7-8. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 58 recites “the same predefined grant-free resource” in lines 10-11. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a predefined grant-free resource” in line 8. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 58 recites “a grant-free transmission” in lines 12-13. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a grant-free transmission” in line 3. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 59 recites “the UEs” in line 3. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “one or more UEs” in line 2. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 59 recites the limitation "the serving base station" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 59 recites the limitation "the certain UEs" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 59 recites “the same signal” in lines 6-7. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a predefined signal” in line 5. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 59 recites “the same predefined grant-free resource” in line 7. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a predefined grant-free resource” in line 6. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 59 recites the limitation "the respective predefined signals" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 59 recites “a grant-free transmission” in line 9. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a grant-free transmission” in line 4. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-16, 18, 21, 26, 32-40, 54, 56-57, and 60 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,770,216 B2 hereinafter “Patent’216”.
Note that the applicant filing of the continuing application is voluntary and not the direct, unmodified result of restriction requirement under 35 U.S.C. 121 (i.e. without a restriction requirement by the examiner) and the claims of the second application are drawn to the “same invention” as the first application or patent. Moreover, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of the instant application are the same scope of the claims of Patent’216.
Regarding claim 1, Patent’216 discloses a user equipment, UE, for a wireless communication network comprising one or more base stations, [see claim 1, lines 1-2]
wherein the UE is configured to perform a transmission to a base station using a grant-free, GF, transmission scheme, the transmission being performed in accordance with a GF transmission configuration, [see claim 1, lines 3-7]
wherein the UE is configured to receive from the base station a certain signaling, the certain signaling indicating that the base station failed to identify the UE from the transmission, and [see claim 1, lines 8-11]
wherein, responsive to the certain signaling from the base station, the UE is configured to retransmit the transmission in accordance with a GF retransmission configuration, the GF retransmission configuration being different from the GF transmission configuration. [see claim 1, lines 12-17]
Regarding claim 2, Patent’216 discloses the user equipment of claim 1, wherein the GF transmission configuration comprises a GF transmission resource or a GF transmission resource pool, and the GF retransmission configuration comprises a GF retransmission resource or a GF retransmission resource pool. [see claim 2]
Regarding claim 3, Patent’216 discloses the user equipment of claim 2, wherein the GF retransmission resource pool is larger than the GF transmission resource pool. [see claim 3]
Regarding claim 4, Patent’216 discloses the user equipment of claim 2, wherein the GF retransmission resource pool comprises the GF transmission resource pool and additional resources, or the GF retransmission resource pool comprises resources different from the GF transmission resource pool. [see claim 4]
Regarding claim 5, Patent’216 discloses the user equipment of claim 2, wherein the UE is configured to select the GF retransmission resource randomly from the GF retransmission resource pool. [see claim 5]
Regarding claim 6, Patent’216 discloses the user equipment of claim 2, wherein the GF retransmission resource pool comprises a plurality of retransmission resource pools, the plurality of retransmission resource pools being of the same size or of different sizes, and the plurality of retransmission resource pools comprising a first GF retransmission resource pool and second GF retransmission resource pool. [see claim 6]
Regarding claim 7, Patent’216 discloses the user equipment of claim 6, wherein the UE is configured to select the GF retransmission resource from first GF retransmission resource pool and from second GF retransmission resource pool randomly, or based on a UE-ID or group/service type, e.g. UEs of a certain type use the first GF retransmission resource pool, and other UEs use the second GF retransmission resource pool. [see claim 7]
Regarding claim 8, Patent’216 discloses the user equipment of claim 6, wherein the GF retransmission resource pool comprises at least one further GF retransmission resource pool. [see claim 8]
Regarding claim 9, Patent’216 discloses the user equipment of claim 1, wherein the GF transmission configuration comprises a GF transmission coding scheme, and the GF retransmission configuration comprises a GF retransmission coding scheme, the GF transmission coding scheme being different from the GF retransmission coding scheme. [see claim 9]
Regarding claim 10, Patent’216 discloses the user equipment of claim 9, wherein the GF transmission coding scheme comprises a first NOMA sequence, and the GF retransmission coding scheme comprises a second NOMA sequence, the second NOMA sequence being more robust than the first NOMA sequence, e.g., by using a lower code rate. [see claim 10]
Regarding claim 11, Patent’216 discloses the user equipment of claim 1, wherein the GF transmission configuration comprises a time at which the transmission is performed, and the GF retransmission configuration comprises a plurality of time offsets for the retransmission relative to the time of the transmission. [see claim 1, lines 18-22]
Regarding claim 12, Patent’216 discloses the user equipment of claim 11, wherein the UE is configured to select, based on a UE-ID or a group/service type, from the plurality of time offsets randomly a time offset for the retransmission, or a preconfigured time offset for the retransmission. [see claim 1, lines 23-27]
Regarding claim 13, Patent’216 discloses the user equipment of claim 12, wherein UEs of a certain type use a preconfigured time offset, and other UEs use a random time offset. [see claim 1, lines 28-29]
Regarding claim 14, Patent’216 discloses the user equipment of claim 1, wherein the GF transmission configuration comprises or identifies a plurality of grant-free access occasions during which grant-free transmissions are to be performed, the plurality of grant-free access occasions comprising at least a first grant-free access occasion and a second grant-free access occasion, and the GF retransmission configuration comprises or identifies at least one further grant-free access occasion during which grant-free retransmissions are to be performed, the further grant-free access occasion being different from the second grant-free access occasion. [see claim 11]
Regarding claim 15, Patent’216 discloses the user equipment of claim 14, wherein first UEs, e.g., latency sensitive UEs or services, like URLLC services, use a further grant-free access occasion that is earlier than the second grant-free access occasion , and second UEs, e.g., less sensitive UEs or services, like enhanced Mobile BroadBand, eMBB, massive Machine-Type Communication, mMTC, or IoTs, use a further grant-free access occasion that is later or earlier than the second grant-free access occasion. [see claim 12]
Regarding claim 16, Patent’216 discloses the user equipment of claim 1, wherein the UE is preconfigured with a plurality of GF retransmission configurations, e.g., using an UE specific RRC signaling, and the UE is configured to receive a control message, like a DCI message, indicating which of the plurality of GF retransmission configurations is to be used by the UE responsive to the certain signaling. [see claim 13]
Regarding claim 18, Patent’216 discloses the user equipment of claim 1, wherein the UE is configured to receive a control message, like a DCI message, indicating a plurality of GF retransmission configurations, and wherein the certain signaling indicates which of the plurality GF retransmission configurations is to be used by UE responsive to receiving the certain signaling. [see claim 13]
Regarding claim 21, Patent’216 discloses the user equipment of claim 1, wherein the certain signaling includes the GF retransmission configuration to be used by UE responsive to receiving the certain signaling [see claim 13]
Regarding claim 26, Patent’216 discloses a base station, BS, for a wireless communication network including one or more base stations, [see claim 14]
wherein the BS is configured to serve one or more UEs of the wireless communication network, wherein a certain number of the UEs, which are served by the BS, are configured to perform a transmission to the BS station using a grant-free, GF, transmission scheme, the transmission being performed in accordance with a GF transmission configuration, [see claim 14, lines 4-10]
wherein the BS is configured receive from the certain UEs respective grant free transmissions and to determine whether the certain UEs can be identified from the grant free transmission, and [see claim 14, lines 11-14]
in case some or all of the certain UEs cannot be identified by the BS, the BS is configured to transmit a certain signaling, the certain signaling indicating that the BS failed to identify the certain UEs from the transmission, and causing the certain UEs to retransmit the transmission in accordance with a GF retransmission configuration, the GF retransmission configuration being different from the GF transmission configuration. [see claim 14, lines 15-23]
Regarding claim 32, Patent’216 discloses the base station of claim 26, wherein the GF transmission configuration includes a GF transmission resource or a GF transmission resource pool, and the GF retransmission configuration includes a GF retransmission resource or a GF retransmission resource pool. [see claims 14, 2]
Regarding claim 33, Patent’216 discloses the base station of claim 32, wherein the GF retransmission resource pool is larger than the GF transmission resource pool. [see claims 14, 3]
Regarding claim 34, Patent’216 discloses the base station of claim 32, wherein the GF retransmission resource pool includes the GF transmission resource pool and additional resources, or the GF retransmission resource pool includes resources different from the GF transmission resource pool. [see claims 14, 4]
Regarding claim 35, Patent’216 discloses the base station of claim 32, wherein the GF retransmission resource pool includes a plurality of retransmission resource pools, the plurality of retransmission resource pools being of the same size or of different sizes, and the plurality of retransmission resource pools including a first GF retransmission resource pool and second GF retransmission resource pool. [see claims 14, 6]
Regarding claim 36, Patent’216 discloses the base station of claim 34, wherein the GF retransmission resource pool includes at least one further GF retransmission resource pool [see claims 14, 8]
Regarding claim 37, Patent’216 discloses the base station of claim 32, wherein the GF transmission configuration includes a GF transmission coding scheme, the GF retransmission configuration includes a GF retransmission coding scheme, the GF transmission coding scheme being different from the GF retransmission coding scheme. [see claims 14, 9]
Regarding claim 38, Patent’216 discloses the base station of claim 37, wherein the GF transmission coding scheme includes a first NOMA sequence, and the GF retransmission coding scheme includes a second NOMA sequence, the second NOMA sequence being more robust than the first NOMA sequence, e.g., by using a lower code rate. [see claims 14, 10]
Regarding claim 39, Patent’216 discloses the base station of claim 32, wherein the GF transmission configuration includes a time at which the transmission is performed, the GF retransmission configuration includes a plurality of time offsets for the retransmission relative to the time of the transmission. [see claim 14, lines 24-28]
Regarding claim 40, Patent’216 discloses the base station of claim 32, wherein the GF transmission configuration includes or identifies a plurality of grant-free access occasions during which grant-free transmissions are to be performed, the plurality of grant-free access occasions including at least a first grant-free access occasion and a second grant-free access occasion, and the GF retransmission configuration includes or identifies at least one further grant-free access occasion during which grant-free retransmissions are to be performed, the further grant-free access occasion being different from the second grant-free access occasion. [see claims 14, 11]
Regarding claim 54, Patent’216 discloses a wireless communication system, comprising a one or more user devices, UEs, of claim 1, and a one or more base stations, BSs. [see claim 14]
Regarding claim 56, Patent’216 discloses a method, comprising [see claim 15]
performing by a user equipment, UE, of a wireless communication network, which includes one or more base stations, a transmission to a base station using a grant-free, GF, transmission scheme, the transmission being performed in accordance with a GF transmission configuration, [see claim 15, lines 2-8]
receiving, at the UE, from the base station a certain signaling, the certain signaling indicating that the base station failed to identify the UE from the transmission, and [see claim 15, lines 9-12]
responsive to the certain signaling from the base station, retransmitting, by the UE, the transmission in accordance with a GF retransmission configuration, the GF retransmission configuration being different from the GF transmission configuration. [see claim 15, lines 13-17]
Regarding claim 57, Patent’216 discloses a method, comprising [see claim 14]
serving, by a base station, BS, of a wireless communication network, which includes one or more base stations, one or more UEs of the wireless communication network, wherein a certain number of the UEs, which are served by the BS, perform a transmission to the BS station using a grant-free, GF, transmission scheme, the transmission being performed in accordance with a GF transmission configuration, [see claim 14, lines 4-10]
receiving, by the BS, from the certain UEs respective grant free transmissions and determining whether the certain UEs can be identified from the grant free transmission, and [see claim 14, lines 11-14]
in case some or all of the certain UEs cannot be identified by the BS, transmitting, by the BS, a certain signaling, the certain signaling indicating that the BS failed to identify the certain UEs from the transmission, and causing the certain UEs to retransmit the transmission in accordance with a GF retransmission configuration, the GF retransmission configuration being different from the GF transmission configuration. [see claim 14, lines 15-23]
Regarding claim 60, Patent’216 discloses a non-transitory digital storage medium having a computer program stored thereon to perform the method of claim 56 when said computer program is run by a computer. [see claim 17]
Claims 17, 19-20, 22-25, 27-31, 41, and 55 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Patent’216 in view of Islam et al. (US 2018/0035459 A1, hereinafter “Islam”).
Note that the applicant filing of the continuing application is voluntary and not the direct, unmodified result of restriction requirement under 35 U.S.C. 121 (i.e. without a restriction requirement by the examiner) and the claims of the second application are drawn to the “same invention” as the first application or patent. Moreover, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of the instant application are the same scope of the claims of Patent’216 by adding the well-known elements and functions as set forth below.
Regarding claim 17, Patent’216 does not explicitly disclose wherein a pre-configuration message indicates a plurality of GF retransmission pools, and the control message indicates one or more GF retransmission pools, and wherein the UE is configured to use, responsive to the certain signaling, the GF retransmission pool indicated in the control message, or in case no GF retransmission pool is indicated in the control message, a preconfigured default GF retransmission pool or the UE may randomly select one of the retransmission pools defined by the RRC signaling.
However, Islam teaches wherein a pre-configuration message indicates a plurality of GF retransmission pools [see Fig. 7, para. 7, 40, 47, 55-58; a pre-configuration message indicates a plurality of GF retransmission pools], and the control message indicates one or more GF retransmission pools, and wherein the UE is configured to use, responsive to the certain signaling, the GF retransmission pool indicated in the control message [see Fig. 8-9, 11, para. 7, 43-44, 48-49, 52-54, 60; control message indicates one or more GF retransmission pools, and wherein the UE is configured to use, responsive to the feedback (NACK), the GF retransmission pool indicated in the control message].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the teaching of Islam into the system of Patent’216 so that it would provide reconfiguration of grant-free resources [see Islam, para. 7].
Regarding claim 19, Patent’216 does not explicitly disclose wherein DCI indicates a plurality of GF retransmission pools.
However, Islam teaches wherein DCI indicates a plurality of GF retransmission pools [see para. 44, 48-49, 52-54; DCI indicates a plurality of GF retransmission pools].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the teaching of Islam into the system of Patent’216 so that it would provide reconfiguration of grant-free resources [see Islam, para. 7].
Regarding claim 20, Patent’216 does not explicitly disclose wherein control message indicates the GF transmission pool explicitly or implicitly, e.g., using RNTI.
However, Islam teaches wherein control message indicates the GF transmission pool explicitly or implicitly, e.g., using RNTI [see Fig. 8-9, 11, para. 7, 43-44, 48-49, 52-54, 60; control message indicates the GF transmission pool explicitly or implicitly using RNTI].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the teaching of Islam into the system of Patent’216 so that it would provide reconfiguration of grant-free resources [see Islam, para. 7].
Regarding claim 22, Patent’216 does not explicitly disclose wherein the certain signaling indicates the GF resource associated with the transmission, and responsive to the certain signaling, the UE is configured to determine that the base station did not receive anything and is not aware of the transmission of the UE.
However, Islam teaches wherein the certain signaling indicates the GF resource associated with the transmission, and responsive to the certain signaling, the UE is configured to determine that the base station did not receive anything and is not aware of the transmission of the UE [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 43-44, 60, 119-121; the feedback (NACK) indicates the grant-free uplink transmission was not successfully received by the base station, in which case the grant-based UEs determine that a retransmission will occur].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the teaching of Islam into the system of Patent’216 so that it would provide reconfiguration of grant-free resources [see Islam, para. 7].
Regarding claim 23, Patent’216 does not explicitly disclose wherein the transmission includes an UE identifier, e.g., a UE-specific DeModulation Reference Signal, DMRS.
However, Islam teaches wherein the transmission includes an UE identifier, e.g., a UE-specific DeModulation Reference Signal, DMRS [see para. 43, 48; the grant-free uplink transmissions include an UE identifier].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the teaching of Islam into the system of Patent’216 so that it would provide reconfiguration of grant-free resources [see Islam, para. 7].
Regarding claim 24, Patent’216 does not explicitly disclose wherein the certain signaling comprises a broadcast NACK message transmitted by the base station to a plurality of UEs in wireless communication network.
However, Islam teaches wherein the certain signaling comprises a broadcast NACK message transmitted by the base station to a plurality of UEs in wireless communication network [see para. 43-44, 60; a broadcast NACK message transmitted by the base station to the UEs].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the teaching of Islam into the system of Patent’216 so that it would provide reconfiguration of grant-free resources [see Islam, para. 7].
Regarding claim 25, Patent’216 does not explicitly disclose comprising one or more of: a mobile or stationary terminal, cellular IoT-UE an IoT device, a ground based vehicle, an aerial vehicle, a drone, a building, or any other item or device provided with network connectivity enabling the item/device to communicate using the wireless communication network, e.g., a sensor or actuator.
However, Islam teaches one or more of: a mobile or stationary terminal, cellular IoT-UE an IoT device, a ground based vehicle, an aerial vehicle, a drone, a building, or any other item or device provided with network connectivity enabling the item/device to communicate using the wireless communication network, e.g., a sensor or actuator [see Fig. 1, para. 45; mobile device, a user equipment (UE), a mobile station (STA), and other wirelessly enabled devices].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the teaching of Islam into the system of Patent’216 so that it would provide reconfiguration of grant-free resources [see Islam, para. 7].
Regarding claim 27, Patent’216 does not explicitly disclose wherein the transmissions from the certain UEs include respective UE identifiers.
However, Islam teaches wherein the transmissions from the certain UEs include respective UE identifiers [see para. 43, 48; the grant-free uplink transmissions include an UE identifier].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the teaching of Islam into the system of Patent’216 so that it would provide reconfiguration of grant-free resources [see Islam, para. 7].
Regarding claim 28, Patent’216 does not explicitly disclose wherein the certain signaling comprises a broadcast NACK message transmitted by the base station to the certain UEs in wireless communication network.
However, Islam teaches wherein the certain signaling comprises a broadcast NACK message transmitted by the base station to the certain UEs in wireless communication network [see para. 43-44, 60; a broadcast NACK message transmitted by the base station to the UEs].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the teaching of Islam into the system of Patent’216 so that it would provide reconfiguration of grant-free resources [see Islam, para. 7].
Regarding claim 29, Patent’216 does not explicitly disclose wherein the certain UEs comprise one, some or all of the UEs served by the BS.
However, Islam teaches wherein the certain UEs comprise one, some or all of the UEs served by the BS [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 119-121; UEs 1,4 of UEs 1-16 served by the BS].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the teaching of Islam into the system of Patent’216 so that it would provide reconfiguration of grant-free resources [see Islam, para. 7].
Regarding claim 30, Patent’216 does not explicitly disclose wherein the certain signaling indicates the GF resource associated with the transmissions.
However, Islam teaches wherein the certain signaling indicates the GF resource associated with the transmissions [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 43, 119-120; the feedback indicates the GF resource and the GF retransmission resource].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the teaching of Islam into the system of Patent’216 so that it would provide reconfiguration of grant-free resources [see Islam, para. 7].
Regarding claim 31, Patent’216 does not explicitly disclose wherein the certain signaling includes the GF retransmission configuration to be used by UE responsive to receiving the certain signaling.
However, Islam teaches wherein the certain signaling includes the GF retransmission configuration to be used by UE responsive to receiving the certain signaling [see para. 140; the feedback comprises the grant-free retransmission configuration; also see para. 43, 59, 120].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the teaching of Islam into the system of Patent’216 so that it would provide reconfiguration of grant-free resources [see Islam, para. 7].
Regarding claim 41, Patent’216 does not explicitly disclose comprising one or more of: a macro cell base station, or a small cell base station, or a UE, or an AMF, or an SMF, or a core network entity, or any transmission/reception point (TRP) enabling an item or a device to communicate using the wireless communication network, the item or device being provided with network connectivity to communicate using the wireless communication network.
However, Islam teaches one or more of: a macro cell base station, or a small cell base station, or a UE, or an AMF, or an SMF, or a core network entity, or any transmission/reception point (TRP) enabling an item or a device to communicate using the wireless communication network, the item or device being provided with network connectivity to communicate using the wireless communication network [see Fig. 1, para. 45; an evolved NodeB (eNodeB or eNB) or a gNB, a transmit/receive point (TRP), a macro-cell, a femtocell, a Wi-Fi access point (AP), or other wirelessly enabled devices].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the teaching of Islam into the system of Patent’216 so that it would provide reconfiguration of grant-free resources [see Islam, para. 7].
Regarding claim 55, Patent’216 does not explicitly disclose using an Inverse Fast Fourier Transform, IFFT, based signal, wherein the IFFT based signal includes OFDM with CP, DFT-s-OFDM with CP, IFFT-based waveforms without CP, f-OFDM, FBMC, GFDM or UFMC.
However, Islam teaches using an Inverse Fast Fourier Transform, IFFT, based signal, wherein the IFFT based signal includes OFDM with CP, DFT-s-OFDM with CP, IFFT-based waveforms without CP, f-OFDM, FBMC, GFDM or UFMC [see Fig. 23A, para. 142-146; IFFT 2412].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the teaching of Islam into the system of Patent’216 so that it would provide reconfiguration of grant-free resources [see Islam, para. 7].
Claims 1-16, 18, 21, 26, 32-40, 54, 56-57, and 60 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,381,659 B2 hereinafter “Patent’659”.
Note that the applicant filing of the continuing application is voluntary and not the direct, unmodified result of restriction requirement under 35 U.S.C. 121 (i.e. without a restriction requirement by the examiner) and the claims of the second application are drawn to the “same invention” as the first application or patent. Moreover, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of the instant application are the same scope of the claims of Patent’659.
Regarding claim 1, Patent’659 discloses a user equipment, UE, for a wireless communication network comprising one or more base stations, [see claim 1, lines 1-3]
wherein the UE is configured to perform a transmission to a base station using a grant-free, GF, transmission scheme, the transmission being performed in accordance with a GF transmission configuration, [see claim 1, lines 4-9]
wherein the UE is configured to receive from the base station a certain signaling, the certain signaling indicating that the base station failed to identify the UE from the transmission, and [see claim 1, lines 10-16]
wherein, responsive to the certain signaling from the base station, the UE is configured to retransmit the transmission in accordance with a GF retransmission configuration, the GF retransmission configuration being different from the GF transmission configuration. [see claim 1, lines 17-21]
Regarding claim 2, Patent’659 discloses the user equipment of claim 1, wherein the GF transmission configuration comprises a GF transmission resource or a GF transmission resource pool, and the GF retransmission configuration comprises a GF retransmission resource or a GF retransmission resource pool. [see claim 2]
Regarding claim 3, Patent’659 discloses the user equipment of claim 2, wherein the GF retransmission resource pool is larger than the GF transmission resource pool. [see claim 3]
Regarding claim 4, Patent’659 discloses the user equipment of claim 2, wherein the GF retransmission resource pool comprises the GF transmission resource pool and additional resources, or the GF retransmission resource pool comprises resources different from the GF transmission resource pool. [see claim 4]
Regarding claim 5, Patent’659 discloses the user equipment of claim 2, wherein the UE is configured to select the GF retransmission resource randomly from the GF retransmission resource pool. [see claim 5]
Regarding claim 6, Patent’659 discloses the user equipment of claim 2, wherein the GF retransmission resource pool comprises a plurality of retransmission resource pools, the plurality of retransmission resource pools being of the same size or of different sizes, and the plurality of retransmission resource pools comprising a first GF retransmission resource pool and second GF retransmission resource pool. [see claim 6]
Regarding claim 7, Patent’659 discloses the user equipment of claim 6, wherein the UE is configured to select the GF retransmission resource from first GF retransmission resource pool and from second GF retransmission resource pool randomly, or based on a UE-ID or group/service type, e.g. UEs of a certain type use the first GF retransmission resource pool, and other UEs use the second GF retransmission resource pool. [see claim 7]
Regarding claim 8, Patent’659 discloses the user equipment of claim 6, wherein the GF retransmission resource pool comprises at least one further GF retransmission resource pool. [see claim 8]
Regarding claim 9, Patent’659 discloses the user equipment of claim 1, wherein the GF transmission configuration comprises a GF transmission coding scheme, and the GF retransmission configuration comprises a GF retransmission coding scheme, the GF transmission coding scheme being different from the GF retransmission coding scheme. [see claim 9]
Regarding claim 10, Patent’659 discloses the user equipment of claim 9, wherein the GF transmission coding scheme comprises a first NOMA sequence, and the GF retransmission coding scheme comprises a second NOMA sequence, the second NOMA sequence being more robust than the first NOMA sequence, e.g., by using a lower code rate. [see claim 10]
Regarding claim 11, Patent’659 discloses the user equipment of claim 1, wherein the GF transmission configuration comprises a time at which the transmission is performed, and the GF retransmission configuration comprises a plurality of time offsets for the retransmission relative to the time of the transmission. [see claim 1, lines 18-22]
Regarding claim 12, Patent’659 discloses the user equipment of claim 11, wherein the UE is configured to select, based on a UE-ID or a group/service type, from the plurality of time offsets randomly a time offset for the retransmission, or a preconfigured time offset for the retransmission. [see claim 1, lines 23-27]
Regarding claim 13, Patent’659 discloses the user equipment of claim 12, wherein UEs of a certain type use a preconfigured time offset, and other UEs use a random time offset. [see claim 1, lines 28-29]
Regarding claim 14, Patent’659 discloses the user equipment of claim 1, wherein the GF transmission configuration comprises or identifies a plurality of grant-free access occasions during which grant-free transmissions are to be performed, the plurality of grant-free access occasions comprising at least a first grant-free access occasion and a second grant-free access occasion, and the GF retransmission configuration comprises or identifies at least one further grant-free access occasion during which grant-free retransmissions are to be performed, the further grant-free access occasion being different from the second grant-free access occasion. [see claim 11]
Regarding claim 15, Patent’659 discloses the user equipment of claim 14, wherein first UEs, e.g., latency sensitive UEs or services, like URLLC services, use a further grant-free access occasion that is earlier than the second grant-free access occasion , and second UEs, e.g., less sensitive UEs or services, like enhanced Mobile BroadBand, eMBB, massive Machine-Type Communication, mMTC, or IoTs, use a further grant-free access occasion that is later or earlier than the second grant-free access occasion. [see claim 15]
Regarding claim 16, Patent’659 discloses the user equipment of claim 1, wherein the UE is preconfigured with a plurality of GF retransmission configurations, e.g., using an UE specific RRC signaling, and the UE is configured to receive a control message, like a DCI message, indicating which of the plurality of GF retransmission configurations is to be used by the UE responsive to the certain signaling. [see claim 16]
Regarding claim 18, Patent’659 discloses the user equipment of claim 1, wherein the UE is configured to receive a control message, like a DCI message, indicating a plurality of GF retransmission configurations, and wherein the certain signaling indicates which of the plurality GF retransmission configurations is to be used by UE responsive to receiving the certain signaling. [see claim 16]
Regarding claim 21, Patent’659 discloses the user equipment of claim 1, wherein the certain signaling includes the GF retransmission configuration to be used by UE responsive to receiving the certain signaling [see claim 16]
Regarding claims 26 and 57, Patent’659 discloses a base station, BS, for a wireless communication network including one or more base stations, [see claim 17]
wherein the BS is configured to serve one or more UEs of the wireless communication network, wherein a certain number of the UEs, which are served by the BS, are configured to perform a transmission to the BS station using a grant-free, GF, transmission scheme, the transmission being performed in accordance with a GF transmission configuration, [see claim 17, lines 3-9]
wherein the BS is configured receive from the certain UEs respective grant free transmissions and to determine whether the certain UEs can be identified from the grant free transmission, and [see claim 17, lines 10-13]
in case some or all of the certain UEs cannot be identified by the BS, the BS is configured to transmit a certain signaling, the certain signaling indicating that the BS failed to identify the certain UEs from the transmission, and causing the certain UEs to retransmit the transmission in accordance with a GF retransmission configuration, the GF retransmission configuration being different from the GF transmission configuration. [see claim 17, lines 14-25]
Regarding claim 32, Patent’659 discloses the base station of claim 26, wherein the GF transmission configuration includes a GF transmission resource or a GF transmission resource pool, and the GF retransmission configuration includes a GF retransmission resource or a GF retransmission resource pool. [see claims 17, 2]
Regarding claim 33, Patent’659 discloses the base station of claim 32, wherein the GF retransmission resource pool is larger than the GF transmission resource pool. [see claims 17, 3]
Regarding claim 34, Patent’659 discloses the base station of claim 32, wherein the GF retransmission resource pool includes the GF transmission resource pool and additional resources, or the GF retransmission resource pool includes resources different from the GF transmission resource pool. [see claims 17, 4]
Regarding claim 35, Patent’659 discloses the base station of claim 32, wherein the GF retransmission resource pool includes a plurality of retransmission resource pools, the plurality of retransmission resource pools being of the same size or of different sizes, and the plurality of retransmission resource pools including a first GF retransmission resource pool and second GF retransmission resource pool. [see claims 17, 6]
Regarding claim 36, Patent’659 discloses the base station of claim 34, wherein the GF retransmission resource pool includes at least one further GF retransmission resource pool [see claims 17, 8]
Regarding claim 37, Patent’659 discloses the base station of claim 32, wherein the GF transmission configuration includes a GF transmission coding scheme, the GF retransmission configuration includes a GF retransmission coding scheme, the GF transmission coding scheme being different from the GF retransmission coding scheme. [see claims 17, 9]
Regarding claim 38, Patent’659 discloses the base station of claim 37, wherein the GF transmission coding scheme includes a first NOMA sequence, and the GF retransmission coding scheme includes a second NOMA sequence, the second NOMA sequence being more robust than the first NOMA sequence, e.g., by using a lower code rate. [see claims 17, 10]
Regarding claim 39, Patent’659 discloses the base station of claim 32, wherein the GF transmission configuration includes a time at which the transmission is performed, the GF retransmission configuration includes a plurality of time offsets for the retransmission relative to the time of the transmission. [see claims 17, 11]
Regarding claim 40, Patent’659 discloses the base station of claim 32, wherein the GF transmission configuration includes or identifies a plurality of grant-free access occasions during which grant-free transmissions are to be performed, the plurality of grant-free access occasions including at least a first grant-free access occasion and a second grant-free access occasion, and the GF retransmission configuration includes or identifies at least one further grant-free access occasion during which grant-free retransmissions are to be performed, the further grant-free access occasion being different from the second grant-free access occasion. [see claims 17, 14]
Regarding claim 54, Patent’659 discloses a wireless communication system, comprising a one or more user devices, UEs, of claim 1, and a one or more base stations, BSs. [see claims 1, 17]
Regarding claim 56, Patent’659 discloses a method, comprising [see claim 18]
performing by a user equipment, UE, of a wireless communication network, which includes one or more base stations, a transmission to a base station using a grant-free, GF, transmission scheme, the transmission being performed in accordance with a GF transmission configuration, [see claim 18, lines 2-9]
receiving, at the UE, from the base station a certain signaling, the certain signaling indicating that the base station failed to identify the UE from the transmission, and [see claim 18, lines 10-16]
responsive to the certain signaling from the base station, retransmitting, by the UE, the transmission in accordance with a GF retransmission configuration, the GF retransmission configuration being different from the GF transmission configuration. [see claim 18, lines 17-20]
Regarding claim 60, Patent’659 discloses a non-transitory digital storage medium having a computer program stored thereon to perform the method of claim 56 when said computer program is run by a computer. [see claim 20]
Claims 17, 19-20, 22-25, 27-31, 41, and 55 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Patent’659 in view of Islam et al. (US 2018/0035459 A1, hereinafter “Islam”).
Note that the applicant filing of the continuing application is voluntary and not the direct, unmodified result of restriction requirement under 35 U.S.C. 121 (i.e. without a restriction requirement by the examiner) and the claims of the second application are drawn to the “same invention” as the first application or patent. Moreover, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of the instant application are the same scope of the claims of Patent’659 by adding the well-known elements and functions as set forth below.
Regarding claim 17, Patent’659 does not explicitly disclose wherein a pre-configuration message indicates a plurality of GF retransmission pools, and the control message indicates one or more GF retransmission pools, and wherein the UE is configured to use, responsive to the certain signaling, the GF retransmission pool indicated in the control message, or in case no GF retransmission pool is indicated in the control message, a preconfigured default GF retransmission pool or the UE may randomly select one of the retransmission pools defined by the RRC signaling.
However, Islam teaches wherein a pre-configuration message indicates a plurality of GF retransmission pools [see Fig. 7, para. 7, 40, 47, 55-58; a pre-configuration message indicates a plurality of GF retransmission pools], and the control message indicates one or more GF retransmission pools, and wherein the UE is configured to use, responsive to the certain signaling, the GF retransmission pool indicated in the control message [see Fig. 8-9, 11, para. 7, 43-44, 48-49, 52-54, 60; control message indicates one or more GF retransmission pools, and wherein the UE is configured to use, responsive to the feedback (NACK), the GF retransmission pool indicated in the control message].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the teaching of Islam into the system of Patent’659 so that it would provide reconfiguration of grant-free resources [see Islam, para. 7].
Regarding claim 19, Patent’659 does not explicitly disclose wherein DCI indicates a plurality of GF retransmission pools.
However, Islam teaches wherein DCI indicates a plurality of GF retransmission pools [see para. 44, 48-49, 52-54; DCI indicates a plurality of GF retransmission pools].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the teaching of Islam into the system of Patent’659 so that it would provide reconfiguration of grant-free resources [see Islam, para. 7].
Regarding claim 20, Patent’659 does not explicitly disclose wherein control message indicates the GF transmission pool explicitly or implicitly, e.g., using RNTI.
However, Islam teaches wherein control message indicates the GF transmission pool explicitly or implicitly, e.g., using RNTI [see Fig. 8-9, 11, para. 7, 43-44, 48-49, 52-54, 60; control message indicates the GF transmission pool explicitly or implicitly using RNTI].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the teaching of Islam into the system of Patent’659 so that it would provide reconfiguration of grant-free resources [see Islam, para. 7].
Regarding claim 22, Patent’659 does not explicitly disclose wherein the certain signaling indicates the GF resource associated with the transmission, and responsive to the certain signaling, the UE is configured to determine that the base station did not receive anything and is not aware of the transmission of the UE.
However, Islam teaches wherein the certain signaling indicates the GF resource associated with the transmission, and responsive to the certain signaling, the UE is configured to determine that the base station did not receive anything and is not aware of the transmission of the UE [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 43-44, 60, 119-121; the feedback (NACK) indicates the grant-free uplink transmission was not successfully received by the base station, in which case the grant-based UEs determine that a retransmission will occur].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the teaching of Islam into the system of Patent’659 so that it would provide reconfiguration of grant-free resources [see Islam, para. 7].
Regarding claim 23, Patent’659 does not explicitly disclose wherein the transmission includes an UE identifier, e.g., a UE-specific DeModulation Reference Signal, DMRS.
However, Islam teaches wherein the transmission includes an UE identifier, e.g., a UE-specific DeModulation Reference Signal, DMRS [see para. 43, 48; the grant-free uplink transmissions include an UE identifier].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the teaching of Islam into the system of Patent’659 so that it would provide reconfiguration of grant-free resources [see Islam, para. 7].
Regarding claim 24, Patent’659 does not explicitly disclose wherein the certain signaling comprises a broadcast NACK message transmitted by the base station to a plurality of UEs in wireless communication network.
However, Islam teaches wherein the certain signaling comprises a broadcast NACK message transmitted by the base station to a plurality of UEs in wireless communication network [see para. 43-44, 60; a broadcast NACK message transmitted by the base station to the UEs].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the teaching of Islam into the system of Patent’659 so that it would provide reconfiguration of grant-free resources [see Islam, para. 7].
Regarding claim 25, Patent’659 does not explicitly disclose comprising one or more of: a mobile or stationary terminal, cellular IoT-UE an IoT device, a ground based vehicle, an aerial vehicle, a drone, a building, or any other item or device provided with network connectivity enabling the item/device to communicate using the wireless communication network, e.g., a sensor or actuator.
However, Islam teaches one or more of: a mobile or stationary terminal, cellular IoT-UE an IoT device, a ground based vehicle, an aerial vehicle, a drone, a building, or any other item or device provided with network connectivity enabling the item/device to communicate using the wireless communication network, e.g., a sensor or actuator [see Fig. 1, para. 45; mobile device, a user equipment (UE), a mobile station (STA), and other wirelessly enabled devices].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the teaching of Islam into the system of Patent’659 so that it would provide reconfiguration of grant-free resources [see Islam, para. 7].
Regarding claim 27, Patent’659 does not explicitly disclose wherein the transmissions from the certain UEs include respective UE identifiers.
However, Islam teaches wherein the transmissions from the certain UEs include respective UE identifiers [see para. 43, 48; the grant-free uplink transmissions include an UE identifier].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the teaching of Islam into the system of Patent’659 so that it would provide reconfiguration of grant-free resources [see Islam, para. 7].
Regarding claim 28, Patent’659 does not explicitly disclose wherein the certain signaling comprises a broadcast NACK message transmitted by the base station to the certain UEs in wireless communication network.
However, Islam teaches wherein the certain signaling comprises a broadcast NACK message transmitted by the base station to the certain UEs in wireless communication network [see para. 43-44, 60; a broadcast NACK message transmitted by the base station to the UEs].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the teaching of Islam into the system of Patent’659 so that it would provide reconfiguration of grant-free resources [see Islam, para. 7].
Regarding claim 29, Patent’659 does not explicitly disclose wherein the certain UEs comprise one, some or all of the UEs served by the BS.
However, Islam teaches wherein the certain UEs comprise one, some or all of the UEs served by the BS [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 119-121; UEs 1,4 of UEs 1-16 served by the BS].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the teaching of Islam into the system of Patent’659 so that it would provide reconfiguration of grant-free resources [see Islam, para. 7].
Regarding claim 30, Patent’659 does not explicitly disclose wherein the certain signaling indicates the GF resource associated with the transmissions.
However, Islam teaches wherein the certain signaling indicates the GF resource associated with the transmissions [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 43, 119-120; the feedback indicates the GF resource and the GF retransmission resource].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the teaching of Islam into the system of Patent’659 so that it would provide reconfiguration of grant-free resources [see Islam, para. 7].
Regarding claim 31, Patent’659 does not explicitly disclose wherein the certain signaling includes the GF retransmission configuration to be used by UE responsive to receiving the certain signaling.
However, Islam teaches wherein the certain signaling includes the GF retransmission configuration to be used by UE responsive to receiving the certain signaling [see para. 140; the feedback comprises the grant-free retransmission configuration; also see para. 43, 59, 120].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the teaching of Islam into the system of Patent’659 so that it would provide reconfiguration of grant-free resources [see Islam, para. 7].
Regarding claim 41, Patent’659 does not explicitly disclose comprising one or more of: a macro cell base station, or a small cell base station, or a UE, or an AMF, or an SMF, or a core network entity, or any transmission/reception point (TRP) enabling an item or a device to communicate using the wireless communication network, the item or device being provided with network connectivity to communicate using the wireless communication network.
However, Islam teaches one or more of: a macro cell base station, or a small cell base station, or a UE, or an AMF, or an SMF, or a core network entity, or any transmission/reception point (TRP) enabling an item or a device to communicate using the wireless communication network, the item or device being provided with network connectivity to communicate using the wireless communication network [see Fig. 1, para. 45; an evolved NodeB (eNodeB or eNB) or a gNB, a transmit/receive point (TRP), a macro-cell, a femtocell, a Wi-Fi access point (AP), or other wirelessly enabled devices].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the teaching of Islam into the system of Patent’659 so that it would provide reconfiguration of grant-free resources [see Islam, para. 7].
Regarding claim 55, Patent’659 does not explicitly disclose using an Inverse Fast Fourier Transform, IFFT, based signal, wherein the IFFT based signal includes OFDM with CP, DFT-s-OFDM with CP, IFFT-based waveforms without CP, f-OFDM, FBMC, GFDM or UFMC.
However, Islam teaches using an Inverse Fast Fourier Transform, IFFT, based signal, wherein the IFFT based signal includes OFDM with CP, DFT-s-OFDM with CP, IFFT-based waveforms without CP, f-OFDM, FBMC, GFDM or UFMC [see Fig. 23A, para. 142-146; IFFT 2412].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the teaching of Islam into the system of Patent’659 so that it would provide reconfiguration of grant-free resources [see Islam, para. 7].
It has been held that the omission an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd.App.1969); omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art. Moreover, the doctrine of double patenting seeks to prevent the unjustified extension of patent exclusivity beyond the term of a patent.
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 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.
(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 1-4, 6-9, 11, 14-37, 39-45, and 54-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Islam et al. (US 2018/0035459 A1, hereinafter “Islam”).
Regarding claims 1 and 56, Islam discloses a user equipment UE, for a wireless communication network including one or more base stations [see Fig. 1, para. 45; UE 120 for network 100 comprising one or more base stations 110; also see Fig. 18D-E, 19A-B, 20, para. 119-128],
wherein the UE is configured to perform a transmission to a base station using a grant-free, GF, transmission scheme [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 119; UE1 is configured to make a new/initial transmission to a base station using a grant-free transmission scheme (region 1912 during TTI 1901)], the transmission being performed in accordance with a GF transmission configuration [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 119; the new/initial transmission being performed in accordance with a grant-free transmission configuration (resource area 1900 during grant-free TTI 1901 for new transmissions)],
wherein the UE is configured to receive from the base station a certain signaling [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 120; UE1 is configured to receive feedback from the base station; also see para. 59], the certain signaling indicating that the base station failed to identify the UE from the transmission [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 43-44, 60, 119-121, 140; the feedback (NACK) indicating that the base station failed to identify the UE from the new/initial transmission], and
wherein, responsive to the certain signaling from the base station, the UE is configured to retransmit the transmission in accordance with a GF retransmission configuration [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 43, 119-120; in response to the feedback from the base station, UE1 is configured to retransmit the new/initial transmission in resource areas 1902, 1904 during grant-free TTIs 1903, 1905 for first retransmission and second retransmission], the GF retransmission configuration being different from the GF transmission configuration [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 119; the grant-free retransmission configuration (resource area 1902 during grant-free TTI 1903 for first retransmission and resource area 1904 during grant-free TTI 1905 for second retransmission) is different from the grant-free new/initial transmission configuration (resource area 1900 during grant-free TTI 1901)].
Regarding claim 60, Islam discloses a non-transitory digital storage medium having a computer program stored thereon to perform the method of claim 56 when said computer program is run by a computer [see Fig. 15, para. 90, Fig. 18D-E, 19A-B, 20, para. 119-128; a memory storing instructions executed by a processor to perform the method of claim 56].
Regarding claim 2, Islam discloses wherein
the GF transmission configuration comprises a GF transmission resource [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 119; region 1912 containing 4 RBs] or a GF transmission resource pool [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 119; resource area 1900 containing 16 RBs], and
the GF retransmission configuration comprises a GF retransmission resource [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 119; first region 1920 containing 4 RBs and second region 1930 containing 4 RBs] or a GF retransmission resource pool [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 119; first resource area 1902 containing 16 RBs and second resource area 1904 containing 16 RBs].
Regarding claim 3, Islam discloses wherein the GF retransmission resource pool is larger than the GF transmission resource pool [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 119; resource areas 1902 and 1904 (32 RBs) is larger than resource area 1900 (16 RBs)].
Regarding claim 4, Islam discloses wherein the GF retransmission resource pool includes resources different from the GF transmission resource pool [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 119; resource areas 1902 and 1904 comprise resources different from the resource area 1900].
Regarding claim 6, Islam discloses wherein the GF retransmission resource pool includes a plurality of retransmission resource pools, the plurality of retransmission resource pools being of the same size or of different sizes, and the plurality of retransmission resource pools comprising a first GF retransmission resource pool and second GF retransmission resource pool [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 119; first resource area 1902 containing 16 RBs and second resource area 1904 containing 16 RBs].
Regarding claim 7, Islam discloses wherein the UE is configured to select the GF retransmission resource from first GF retransmission resource pool and from second GF retransmission resource pool [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 119; UE1 is configured to select the GF retransmission resource (4 RBs in region 1920 and 4 RBs in region 1930) from first GF retransmission resource pool (resource area 1902) and from second GF retransmission resource pool (resource area 1904)] based on a UE-ID [see para. 43; based on a UE identifier, e.g., an RNTI].
Regarding claim 8, Islam discloses wherein the GF retransmission resource pool includes at least one further GF retransmission resource pool [see Fig. 19A-B, 20, para. 123-128; at least one further grant-free retransmission resource areas].
Regarding claim 9, Islam discloses wherein the GF transmission configuration includes a GF transmission coding scheme, and the GF retransmission configuration comprises a GF retransmission coding scheme, the GF transmission coding scheme being different from the GF retransmission coding scheme [see para. 40; group(s) of grant-free resources are configured based on modulation and coding schemes (MCSs) supported for grant-free transmissions, for example, one group is configured for grant-free transmission with a first MCS and a second group is configured with a second MCS. Alternatively, one group is configured to observe more grant-free transmission than a second group (e.g., more UEs can transmit in one group than other, i.e., loading can be different)].
Regarding claim 11, Islam discloses wherein the GF transmission configuration includes a time at which the transmission is performed, and the GF retransmission configuration comprises a plurality of time offsets for the retransmission relative to the time of the transmission [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 119; the grant-free new/initial transmission is during TTI 1901 (t) and the grant-free retransmissions are during TTI 1903 (t+1) and TTI 1905 (t+2)].
Regarding claim 14, Islam discloses wherein the GF transmission configuration includes or identifies a plurality of grant-free access occasions during which grant-free transmissions are to be performed [see Fig. 19A-B, para. 123-126; grant-free transmission configuration comprises a plurality of grant-free TTIs during which grant-free transmission are to be performed], the plurality of grant-free access occasions comprising at least a first grant-free access occasion and a second grant-free access occasion [see Fig. 19A-B, para. 123-126; the plurality of grant-free TTIs comprising at least grant-free TTI 1805 and grant-free TTI 1807], and the GF retransmission configuration comprises or identifies at least one further grant-free access occasion during which grant-free retransmissions are to be performed [see Fig. 19A-B, para. 123-126; grant-free TTI 1809], the further grant-free access occasion being different from the second grant-free access occasion [see Fig. 19A-B, para. 123-126; grant-free TTI 1809 is different from grant-free TTI 1807].
Regarding claim 15, Islam discloses wherein first UEs use a further grant-free access occasion that is earlier than the second grant-free access occasion [see Fig. 19B, para. 123-126; first UEs use grant-free TTI 1805 that is earlier than grant-free TTI 1807], and second UEs use a further grant-free access occasion that is later or earlier than the second grant-free access occasion [see Fig. 19A-B, para. 123-126; second UEs use grant-free TTI 1809 that is later than grant-free TTI 1807].
Regarding claim 16, Islam discloses wherein the UE is preconfigured with a plurality of GF retransmission configurations, e.g., using an UE specific RRC signaling [see Fig. 7, para. 7, 40, 47, 55-58; the UE is preconfigured with a plurality of GF retransmission configurations using higher layer signaling (RRC)], and the UE is configured to receive a control message, like a DCI message, indicating which of the plurality of GF retransmission configurations is to be used by the UE responsive to the certain signaling [see Fig. 8-9, 11, para. 7, 43-44, 48-49, 52-54, 60; the UE is configured to receive a DCI message indicating which of the grant-free retransmission configurations is to be used by the UE responsive to the feedback (NACK)].
Regarding claim 17, Islam discloses wherein a pre-configuration message indicates a plurality of GF retransmission pools [see Fig. 7, para. 7, 40, 47, 55-58; a pre-configuration message indicates a plurality of GF retransmission pools], and the control message indicates one or more GF retransmission pools, and wherein the UE is configured to use, responsive to the certain signaling, the GF retransmission pool indicated in the control message [see Fig. 8-9, 11, para. 7, 43-44, 48-49, 52-54, 60; control message indicates one or more GF retransmission pools, and wherein the UE is configured to use, responsive to the feedback (NACK), the GF retransmission pool indicated in the control message].
Regarding claim 18, Islam discloses wherein the UE is configured to receive a control message, like a DCI message, indicating a plurality of GF retransmission configurations, and wherein the certain signaling indicates which of the plurality GF retransmission configurations is to be used by UE responsive to receiving the certain signaling [see Fig. 8-9, 11, para. 7, 43-44, 48-49, 52-54, 60; the UE is configured to receive a DCI message indicating which of the grant-free retransmission configurations is to be used by the UE responsive to the feedback (NACK)].
Regarding claim 19, Islam discloses wherein DCI indicates a plurality of GF retransmission pools [see para. 44, 48-49, 52-54; DCI indicates a plurality of GF retransmission pools].
Regarding claim 20, Islam discloses wherein control message indicates the GF transmission pool explicitly or implicitly, e.g., using RNTI [see Fig. 8-9, 11, para. 7, 43-44, 48-49, 52-54, 60; control message indicates the GF transmission pool explicitly or implicitly using RNTI].
Regarding claim 21, Islam discloses wherein the certain signaling includes the GF retransmission configuration to be used by UE responsive to receiving the certain signaling [see para. 140; the feedback comprises the grant-free retransmission configuration; also see para. 43, 59, 120].
Regarding claim 22, Islam discloses wherein the certain signaling indicates the GF resource associated with the transmission, and responsive to the certain signaling, the UE is configured to determine that the base station did not receive anything and is not aware of the transmission of the UE [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 43-44, 60, 119-121; the feedback (NACK) indicates the grant-free uplink transmission was not successfully received by the base station, in which case the grant-based UEs determine that a retransmission will occur].
Regarding claim 23, Islam discloses wherein the transmission includes an UE identifier, e.g., a UE-specific DeModulation Reference Signal, DMRS [see para. 43, 48; the grant-free uplink transmissions include an UE identifier].
Regarding claim 24, Islam discloses wherein the certain signaling comprises a broadcast NACK message transmitted by the base station to a plurality of UEs in wireless communication network [see para. 43-44, 60; a broadcast NACK message transmitted by the base station to the UEs].
Regarding claim 25, Islam discloses one or more of: a mobile or stationary terminal, cellular IoT-UE an IoT device, a ground based vehicle, an aerial vehicle, a drone, a building, or any other item or device provided with network connectivity enabling the item/device to communicate using the wireless communication network, e.g., a sensor or actuator [see Fig. 1, para. 45; mobile device, a user equipment (UE), a mobile station (STA), and other wirelessly enabled devices].
Regarding claim 54, Islam discloses a wireless communication system [see Fig. 1, para. 45; network 100; also see Fig. 18D-E, 19A-B, 20, para. 119-128], comprising a one or more user devices, UEs, of claim 1 [see Fig. 1, para. 45; one or more UEs 120; also see Fig. 18D-E, 19A-B, 20, para. 119-128], and a one or more base stations, BSs [see Fig. 1, para. 45; one or more base stations 110; also see Fig. 18D-E, 19A-B, 20, para. 119-128].
Regarding claim 55, Islam discloses using an Inverse Fast Fourier Transform, IFFT, based signal, wherein the IFFT based signal includes OFDM with CP, DFT-s-OFDM with CP, IFFT-based waveforms without CP, f-OFDM, FBMC, GFDM or UFMC [see Fig. 23A, para. 142-146; IFFT 2412].
Regarding claims 26 and 57, Islam discloses a base station, BS, [see Fig. 1, para. 45; base station 110] for a wireless communication network [see Fig. 1, para. 45; network 100; also see Fig. 18D-E, 19A-B, 20, para. 119-128] including one or more base stations [see Fig. 1, para. 45; one or more base stations 110; also see Fig. 18D-E, 19A-B, 20, para. 119-128],
wherein the BS is configured to serve one or more UEs of the wireless communication network [see Fig. 1, para. 45; the base station 110 is configured to serve UEs 120 of the network 100], wherein a certain number of the UEs, which are served by the BS, are configured to perform a transmission to the BS station using a grant-free, GF, transmission scheme [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 119; UE1 is configured to make a new/initial transmission to a base station using a grant-free transmission scheme (region 1912 during TTI 1901)], the transmission being performed in accordance with a GF transmission configuration [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 119; the new/initial transmission being performed in accordance with a grant-free transmission configuration (resource area 1900 during grant-free TTI 1901 for new transmissions)],
wherein the BS is configured receive from the certain UEs respective grant free transmissions [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 119; the base station receives from UEs 1,4 grant-free new/initial transmissions] and to determine whether the certain UEs can be identified from the grant free transmission [see para. 120; determine which UE is detected from the grant-free transmission], and
in case some or all of the certain UEs cannot be identified by the BS, the BS is configured to transmit a certain signaling [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 120; the base station is configured to transmit feedback to UEs 1,4 that are not detected by the base station; also see para. 59],
the certain signaling indicating that the base station failed to identify the UE from the transmission [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 43-44, 60, 119-121, 140; the feedback (NACK) indicating that the base station failed to identify the UE from the new/initial transmission], and
causing the certain UEs to retransmit the transmission in accordance with a GF retransmission configuration [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 43, 119-120; in response to the feedback from the base station, UEs 1,4 are configured to retransmit the new/initial transmission in resource areas 1902, 1904 during grant-free TTIs 1903, 1905 for first retransmission and second retransmission], the GF retransmission configuration being different from the GF transmission configuration [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 119; the grant-free retransmission configuration (resource area 1902 during grant-free TTI 1903 for first retransmission and resource area 1904 during grant-free TTI 1905 for second retransmission) is different from the grant-free new/initial transmission configuration (resource area 1900 during grant-free TTI 1901)].
Regarding claim 27, Islam discloses wherein the transmissions from the certain UEs include respective UE identifiers [see para. 43, 48; the grant-free uplink transmissions include an UE identifier].
Regarding claim 28, Islam discloses wherein the certain signaling comprises a broadcast NACK message transmitted by the base station to the certain UEs in wireless communication network [see para. 43-44, 60; a broadcast NACK message transmitted by the base station to the UEs].
Regarding claim 29, Islam discloses wherein the certain UEs comprise one, some or all of the UEs served by the BS [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 119-121; UEs 1,4 of UEs 1-16 served by the BS].
Regarding claim 30, Islam discloses wherein the certain signaling indicates the GF resource associated with the transmissions [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 43, 119-120; the feedback indicates the GF resource and the GF retransmission resource].
Regarding claim 31, Islam discloses wherein the certain signaling includes the GF retransmission configuration to be used by UE responsive to receiving the certain signaling [see para. 140; the feedback comprises the grant-free retransmission configuration; also see para. 43, 59, 120].
Regarding claim 32, Islam discloses wherein
the GF transmission configuration comprises a GF transmission resource [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 119; region 1912 containing 4 RBs] or a GF transmission resource pool [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 119; resource area 1900 containing 16 RBs], and
the GF retransmission configuration comprises a GF retransmission resource [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 119; first region 1920 containing 4 RBs and second region 1930 containing 4 RBs] or a GF retransmission resource pool [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 119; first resource area 1902 containing 16 RBs and second resource area 1904 containing 16 RBs].
Regarding claim 33, Islam discloses wherein the GF retransmission resource pool is larger than the GF transmission resource pool [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 119; resource areas 1902 and 1904 (32 RBs) is larger than resource area 1900 (16 RBs)].
Regarding claim 34, Islam discloses wherein the GF retransmission resource pool includes resources different from the GF transmission resource pool [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 119; resource areas 1902 and 1904 comprise resources different from the resource area 1900].
Regarding claim 35, Islam discloses wherein the GF retransmission resource pool includes a plurality of retransmission resource pools, the plurality of retransmission resource pools being of the same size or of different sizes, and the plurality of retransmission resource pools comprising a first GF retransmission resource pool and second GF retransmission resource pool [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 119; first resource area 1902 containing 16 RBs and second resource area 1904 containing 16 RBs].
Regarding claim 36, Islam discloses wherein the GF retransmission resource pool includes at least one further GF retransmission resource pool [see Fig. 19A-B, 20, para. 123-128; at least one further grant-free retransmission resource areas].
Regarding claim 37, Islam discloses wherein the GF transmission configuration includes a GF transmission coding scheme, and the GF retransmission configuration comprises a GF retransmission coding scheme, the GF transmission coding scheme being different from the GF retransmission coding scheme [see para. 40; group(s) of grant-free resources are configured based on modulation and coding schemes (MCSs) supported for grant-free transmissions, for example, one group is configured for grant-free transmission with a first MCS and a second group is configured with a second MCS. Alternatively, one group is configured to observe more grant-free transmission than a second group (e.g., more UEs can transmit in one group than other, i.e., loading can be different)].
Regarding claim 39, Islam discloses wherein the GF transmission configuration includes a time at which the transmission is performed, and the GF retransmission configuration comprises a plurality of time offsets for the retransmission relative to the time of the transmission [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 119; the grant-free new/initial transmission is during TTI 1901 (t) and the grant-free retransmissions are during TTI 1903 (t+1) and TTI 1905 (t+2)].
Regarding claim 40, Islam discloses wherein the GF transmission configuration includes or identifies a plurality of grant-free access occasions during which grant-free transmissions are to be performed [see Fig. 19A-B, para. 123-126; grant-free transmission configuration comprises a plurality of grant-free TTIs during which grant-free transmission are to be performed], the plurality of grant-free access occasions comprising at least a first grant-free access occasion and a second grant-free access occasion [see Fig. 19A-B, para. 123-126; the plurality of grant-free TTIs comprising at least grant-free TTI 1805 and grant-free TTI 1807], and the GF retransmission configuration comprises or identifies at least one further grant-free access occasion during which grant-free retransmissions are to be performed [see Fig. 19A-B, para. 123-126; grant-free TTI 1809], the further grant-free access occasion being different from the second grant-free access occasion [see Fig. 19A-B, para. 123-126; grant-free TTI 1809 is different from grant-free TTI 1807].
Regarding claim 41, Islam discloses one or more of: a macro cell base station, or a small cell base station, or a UE, or an AMF, or an SMF, or a core network entity, or any transmission/reception point (TRP) enabling an item or a device to communicate using the wireless communication network, the item or device being provided with network connectivity to communicate using the wireless communication network [see Fig. 1, para. 45; an evolved NodeB (eNodeB or eNB) or a gNB, a transmit/receive point (TRP), a macro-cell, a femtocell, a Wi-Fi access point (AP), or other wirelessly enabled devices].
Regarding claims 42 and 58, Islam discloses a user equipment, UE, for a wireless communication network including one or more base stations and UEs [see Fig. 1, para. 45; UE 120 for network 100 comprising one or more base stations 110 and UEs 120; also see Fig. 18D-E, 19A-B, 20, para. 119-128], wherein a plurality of UEs is served by a base station [see Fig. 1, para. 45, Fig. 18D-E, para. 119-120; a plurality of UEs (1-16) is served by a base station] and is configured to perform a grant-free transmission to the serving base station [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 119; UEs (1-16) is configured to make a new/initial transmission to a base station using a grant-free transmission scheme],
wherein the UE is configured to perform a grant-free data transmission to the base station using a grant-free, GF, transmission scheme [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 119; UE1 is configured to make a new/initial transmission to a base station using a grant-free transmission scheme, GRANT-FREE NEW Tx in resource area 1900 during t (TTI 1901)]
wherein the UE is configured to transmit, responsive to a grant-free data transmission [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 119; responsive to a new/initial transmission in resource area 1900 during t (TTI 1901)], a predefined signal to the base station using a predefined grant-free resource [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 43, 119-120; UE1 is configured to retransmit the new/initial transmission using GRANT-FREE FIRST RE-Tx in resource area 1902 during t+1 (TTI 1903)], wherein all UEs, which are served by the BS and which perform a grant-free data transmission [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 119; UEs (1-16) perform new/initial transmission in resource area 1900 during t (TTI 1901)], transmit the same predefined signal on the same predefined grant-free resource [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 119; UEs (1-16) retransmit the new/initial transmission using the same GRANT-FREE FIRST RE-Tx in resource area 1902 during t+1 (TTI 1903)], and wherein the predefined signal allows the base station to determine that a grant-free transmission occurs [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 43, 119-121; the retransmission of the new/initial transmission allows the base station to determine that the new/initial transmission occurs].
Regarding claim 43, Islam discloses wherein the grant-free resource is a resource selected from a grant-free resource pool [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 119; the GRANT-FREE NEW Tx 1900 resource is a resource (region 1912 containing 4RBs) selected from a grant-free resource pool (resource area 1900 containing 16 RBs)].
Regarding claim 44, Islam discloses wherein the UE is configured to select a predefined signal from a plurality of predefined signals dependent on the UE type or dependent on a service provided by the UE, thereby allowing the base station to discriminate UEs of different types [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 43, 119-121; UE1 is configured to select the GF retransmission resource (4 RBs in region 1920 and 4 RBs in region 1930) from first GF retransmission resource pool (resource area 1902) and from second GF retransmission resource pool (resource area 1904) based on a UE identifier, e.g., an RNTI; also see Fig. 20, para. 127-129; using the pilot sequence based approach allowing the base station to distinguish between different categories of UEs (e.g., a category with one retransmission and a category with two retransmissions)].
Regarding claims 45 and 59, Islam discloses a base station, BS, for a wireless communication network including one or more base stations and a plurality of UEs [see Fig. 1, para. 45; BS 110 for network 100 comprising one or more base stations 110 and a plurality of UEs 120; also see Fig. 18D-E, 19A-B, 20, para. 119-128],
wherein the BS is configured to serve one or more UEs of the wireless communication network [see Fig. 1, para. 45, Fig. 18D-E, para. 119-120; the BS is configured to serve a plurality of UEs (1-16)], wherein a certain number of the UEs, which are served by the BS, are configured to perform a grant-free transmission to the base station [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 119; UEs (1-16) is configured to make a new/initial transmission to a base station using a grant-free transmission scheme, GRANT-FREE NEW Tx in resource area 1900 during t (TTI 1901)] and to transmit, responsive to a grant-free data transmission [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 119; responsive to a new/initial transmission in resource area 1900 during t (TTI 1901)], a predefined signal to the base station using a predefined grant-free resource so that all of the certain UEs transmit the same signal on the same predefined grant-free resource [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 43, 119-120; UEs (1-16) retransmit the new/initial transmission using GRANT-FREE FIRST RE-Tx in resource area 1902 during t+1 (TTI 1903)],
wherein the BS is configured receive from the certain UEs the respective predefined signals on the predefined grant-free resource so as to detect that a grant-free transmission from the certain UEs occurs [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 43, 119-121; the BS receive from UEs (1-16) the retransmission of the new/initial transmission on the GRANT-FREE FIRST RE-Tx in resource area 1902 so as to detect that a new/initial transmission from UEs (1-16) occurs].
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 5, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Islam in view of Cao et al. (US 2018/0123765 A1, hereinafter “Cao”).
Regarding claim 5, Islam discloses wherein the UE is configured to select the GF retransmission resource from the GF retransmission resource pool [see Fig. 18D-E, para. 119; the first region 1920 containing 4 RBs and second region 1930 containing 4 RBs is selected from the first resource area 1902 containing 16 RBs and the second resource area 1904 containing 16 RBs].
Islam does not explicitly disclose select the GF retransmission resource “randomly”.
However, Cao teaches UE is configured to select grant-free resource randomly [see Fig. 4-5, para. 73-74; UE selects grant-free uplink transmission resource randomly].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “UE is configured to select grant-free resource randomly”, as taught by Cao, into the system of Islam so that it would provide support for ACK/NACK feedback for grant-free transmissions and retransmissions [see Cao, para. 11].
Regarding claim 12, Islam does not explicitly disclose wherein the UE is configured to select, based on a UE-ID, a preconfigured time offset for the retransmission.
However, Cao teaches UE is configured to select, based on a UE-ID, a preconfigured time offset for retransmission [see para. 56, 213; the UE is configured to select periodicity and offset of the resource for retransmission based on UE ID; also see para. 196, 207].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “UE is configured to select, based on a UE-ID, a preconfigured time offset for retransmission”, as taught by Cao, into the system of Islam so that it would provide support for ACK/NACK feedback for grant-free transmissions and retransmissions [see Cao, para. 11].
Regarding claim 13, Islam does not explicitly disclose wherein UEs of a certain type use a preconfigured time offset, and other UEs use a random time offset.
However, Cao teaches UEs of a certain type use a preconfigured time offset [see para. 56, 213; the UE is configured to select periodicity and offset of the resource for retransmission based on UE ID; also see para. 196, 207], and other UEs use a random time offset [see Fig. 4-5, para. 73-74; UE selects grant-free uplink transmission resource randomly].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “UEs of a certain type use a preconfigured time offset, and other UEs use a random time offset”, as taught by Cao, into the system of Islam so that it would provide support for ACK/NACK feedback for grant-free transmissions and retransmissions [see Cao, para. 11].
Claims 10 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Islam in view of (INTEL CORPORATION: “Support of link adaptation for UL grant-free NOMA schemes”; 3GPP DRAFT; R1-1610374 LA GRANT-FREE NOMA, 3RD GENERATION PARTNERSHIP PROJECT (3GPP), MOBILE COMPETENCE CENTRE. 350, ROUTE DES LUCIOLES; F-06921 SOPHIA-ANTIPOLIS CEDEX, FRANCE; vol. RAN WG1, no. Lisbon, Portugal; 20161010 – 20161014; 9 October 2016 (2016-10-09), XP051150385, hereinafter “Intel”).
Regarding claim 10, Islam discloses wherein the GF transmission coding scheme comprises a first sequence [see para. 111, 121; pilot sequence for new/initial transmission], and the GF retransmission coding scheme comprises a second sequence [see para. 111, 121; pilot sequence for retransmission], the second sequence being more robust than the first sequence [see para. 127; pilot sequence for retransmission yields improved resource utilization].
Islam does not explicitly disclose “NOMA” sequence.
However, Intel teaches NOMA sequence [see page 1; a MA resource comprises NOMA sequence] and the retransmission NOMA sequence being more robust than the initial transmission NOMA sequence [see page 3, second paragraph; lower MCS for retransmission].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “NOMA sequence and the retransmission NOMA sequence being more robust than the initial transmission NOMA sequence”, as taught by Intel, into the system of Islam so that it would improve the robustness and the link budget of the subsequent retransmission attempts [see Intel, page 3, second paragraph].
Regarding claim 38, Islam discloses wherein the GF transmission coding scheme comprises a first sequence [see para. 111, 121; pilot sequence for new/initial transmission], and the GF retransmission coding scheme comprises a second sequence [see para. 111, 121; pilot sequence for retransmission], the second sequence being more robust than the first sequence [see para. 127; pilot sequence for retransmission yields improved resource utilization].
Islam does not explicitly disclose “NOMA” sequence.
However, Intel teaches NOMA sequence [see page 1; a MA resource comprises NOMA sequence] and the retransmission NOMA sequence being more robust than the initial transmission NOMA sequence [see page 3, second paragraph; lower MCS for retransmission].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “NOMA sequence and the retransmission NOMA sequence being more robust than the initial transmission NOMA sequence”, as taught by Intel, into the system of Islam so that it would improve the robustness and the link budget of the subsequent retransmission attempts [see Intel, page 3, second paragraph].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cao et al. (US 11,516,826 B2), see Fig. 3A-K, col. 2-4, discloses signaling for semi-static configuration in grant free uplink transmissions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN T LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5615. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10AM-6PM.
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, JAE LEE can be reached on 571-270-3936. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2479
Prosecution Insights