Patent Application 15456163 - TECHNIQUES FOR ADAPTIVE TRANSMISSIONS DURING URLLC

Title: TECHNIQUES FOR ADAPTIVE TRANSMISSIONS DURING URLLC

Application Information

Invention Title: TECHNIQUES FOR ADAPTIVE TRANSMISSIONS DURING URLLC
Application Number: 15456163
Submission Date: 2025-05-13T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2017-03-10T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2017-03-10T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 370
National Sub-Class: 329000
Examiner Employee Number: 92153
Art Unit: 2415
Tech Center: 2400

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 0
103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

No patents were cited in this rejection.

Office Action Text

DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office Action is in response to the submission filed 2025-02-03 (herein referred to as the Reply) where claim(s) 1, 17, 37 are pending for consideration.

35 USC §112(a) – Claim Rejections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
Claim(s) 1, 17
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claim(s) 1, 17 were amended to recite variants of:
the retransmission grant indicating…
a delay to transmit a retransmission; and

The Reply fails to identify any portions in the Specification where this new, amended feature is supported. Furthermore, the Examiner could find no support for this feature. In fact, the word “delay” only shows up in the Specification once:
[0004]… and massive machine type communications for a very large number of connected devices and typically transmitting a relatively low volume of non-delay-sensitive information.
However in the above, the content is not relevant to the claimed subject matter. Consequently, the amendments have added new matter to the claim that is not supported in the Specification.

35 USC §103 - Claim Rejections
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 of this title, 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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel_181 (US20170265181) in view of LI_548 (US20180213548)
Claim(s) 37
Patel_181 teaches
a transceiver; a memory configured to store data; and one or more processors communicatively coupled with the transceiver and the memory, the one or more processors and the memory being configured to: Wireless device such as UE includes a processor, memory, receiver and transmitted to carry out embodiments. <FIG(s). 1, 6; para. 0036, 0104-0110>.
transmit first transmission, the first transmission comprising
a service request (SR) and UE transmits an SR to a network access device. <FIG(s). 1, 3; para. 0067-0070>.
a demodulation reference signal (DMRS); and In some examples, the first SR transmission may include a reference signal (e.g., a demodulation reference signal (DMRS)). <FIG(s). 1, 3; para. 0067-0070>.
transmitting a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH). The UE may determine to transmit a first SR, and select contention-based PUSCH resources for transmitting the SR. <FIG(s). 1, 3; para. 0067-0071>.
Patel_181 does not explicitly teach
the first transmission being 4 symbols in length; and
However in a similar endeavor, LI_548 teaches
the first transmission being 4 symbols in length; and A transmission including a DMRS can be 4 symbols in length. <FIG(s). 2; para. 0077-0082, 0092, 0094-0095>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by Patel_181 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by LI_548. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a data communication method and an apparatus, so as to meet a requirement for a low-latency service. <SUMMARY>.

Response to Arguments
The Reply’s arguments with respect to the other matters have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the rejection(s), which was necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments, being used in the current rejection.

Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE TACDIRAN whose telephone number is 571-272-1717. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH, 10-5PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.

/ANDRE TACDIRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415