3GPP TSG-RAN WG1 Meeting #120-bis	R1-2501730
Wuhan, People’s Republic of China, April 7th – 11th, 2025

Agenda Item:	9.11.3
Source:	Ericsson
Title:	On uplink capacity enhancements for NR-NTN
Document for:	Discussion

Conclusion
OCC with Msg3 PUSCH is not in scope of Release 19 NR NTN Ph3.

Agreement
For RV cycling for OCC with DG-PUSCH, support Option 1 
Option 1: RV cycling is used across OCC groups.
Note: when option 1 is applied, RV cycling is applied when the number of repetitions is greater than the OCC length
No optimization in Rel-19 for pairing UEs with OCC2 and UEs with OCC4.

Appendix B Link Level simulation parameters 

Appendix C SNR range
 To derive a range of SNRs at which OCC link level performance is to be evaluated, a link budget analysis was made. The assumptions from Rel-18 NR NTN coverage enhancement study have been reused with minor modifications, as shown in Table 5.
Table 5: Assumptions for link budget calculations.

Link budget results are shown in Table 6, with the number of PRBs as a parameter.
Table 6: Link budget results for one PRB.

For allocations with more than one PRB, the SNR range should be adjusted by -10log10(#PRBs).
In simulations with 2 PRBs, the target SNR range is [-5.7 to -0.6] dB for LEO 600 and [-11.1 to -6.6] dB for LEO 1200.
In simulations with 1 PRB, the target SNR range is [-2.7 to +2.4] dB for LEO 600 and [-8.1 to -3.6] dB for LEO 1200.



Appendix D	Detailed simulation results
D.1		Frequency hopping

Figure 1: LDR/ VoIP PUSCH BLER performance with/without inter-OCC group frequency hopping on NTN-TDL-A. Left: LDR. Right: VOIP.

Figure 2: LDR/VoIP PUSCH BLER performance with/without inter-OCC group frequency hopping on NTN-TDL-C. Left: LDR. Right: VOIP.

D.2		RV cycling

Figure 3: LDR PUSCH BLER performance with/without inter-OCC group RV cycling. Left: 2 UEs. Right: 4 UEs.


Figure 4: VoIP PUSCH BLER performance with/without inter-OCC group RV cycling. Left: 2 UEs. Right: 4 UEs.

D.3		UCI on PUSCH 

Figure 5: LDR PUSCH BLER performance with UCI multiplexing. Left: 8 repetitions. Right: 16 repetitions.



Figure 6: VoIP PUSCH BLER performance with UCI multiplexing. Left: 8 repetitions. Right: 16 repetitions.

3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #120bis                                                                                            R1-2501824
Wuhan, China, April 7th – 11th, 2025

Source:	vivo
Title:	Discussion on NR-NTN uplink capacity enhancement
Agenda Item:	9.11.3
Document for:	Discussion and Decision

Conclusion
In this contribution, we provide our views on NR NTN OCC schemes. According to the discussions, we have the following proposals: 
Proposal 1. OCC can be applied to dedicated PUSCH scheduled by DCI format 0_0 for connected UE.
Proposal 2.  For occ-SequenceIndex for OCC with DG, the occ-SequenceIndex is jointly indicated with DMRS port by DCI format 0_0 or DCI format 0_1 or DCI format 0_2 with CRC scrambled by C-RNTI, CS-RNTI, MCS-C-RNTI.
Proposal 3. For occ-SequenceIndex for OCC with configured grant type2, the occ-SequenceIndex is jointly indicated with DMRS port by the activation DCI.
Proposal 4. For occ-SequenceIndex for OCC with configured grant type1, the occ-SequenceIndex is configured by RRC.
Proposal 5. The enable/disable of OCC feature for PUSCH with DG/CG is configured by RRC only.
Proposal 6. For occ-Length for OCC with DG PUSCH or CG PUSCH type 2, the occ-Length is configured by RRC (option1) is preferred. Alternatively, option3’ where the occ-Length is indicated by the corresponding DCI without RRC configured occ length candidates is also acceptable.
Proposal 7. For occ-Length for OCC with CG PUSCH type 1, the occ-Length is configured by RRC.Proposal 8. If Option 3a is taken, the UE is not expected to be scheduled with a PUCCH overlapping with a PUSCH repetition other than the first PUSCH repetition within an OCC group.
Proposal 8. If Option 3a is taken, the UE is not expected to be scheduled with a PUCCH overlapping with a PUSCH repetition other than the first PUSCH repetition within an OCC group.
Proposal 9. Either Option2 or Option3a can be supported. Option3a can be supported only when the following conditions are always met:  1) only one PUCCH (not SR only) without repetition overlaps with a PUSCH OCC group, and 2) that their priorities are the same; otherwise, NW should avoid overlapping between PUSCH repetition with OCC enabled and PUCCH.
Proposal 10. If overlaps between PUCCH repetition and PUSCH repetition with enabled OCC cannot be avoided, PUCCH repetition is transmitted and the OCC group is dropped.
Proposal 11. If A-CSI is transmitted on PUSCH repetition with enabled OCC, CSI is repeated in the OCC group.

3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #120bis                                                                R1- 2501882
Wuhan, China, April 07th – 11th, 2025

Agenda Item:	9.11.3
Source:	Spreadtrum, UNISOC, SGITG
Title:	Discussion on NR-NTN uplink capacity and throughput enhancement 
Document for:	Discussion and decision

Conclusion
In this contribution, we provided views on Redcap positioning. In summary, we have following proposals:
Proposal 1: When there is only SR on PUCCH without repetition, SR is dropping (Option 1), as same as legacy.
Proposal 2: Only when HARQ-ACK and or CSI on PUCCH without repetition overlaps with PUSCH in the first repetition of a OCC group, the UCI of PUCCH can be multiplexed on the PUSCH OCC group(Option 3-a), otherwise the UCI on PUCCH is dropped (Option 1).
Proposal 3: For PUCCH with repetitions, the following cases of first overlapping slot and number of overlapping OCC groups of PUSCH and PUCCH can be considered:
Case 1: it is the first slot of an OCC group
Case 2: it is not first slot of an OCC group, and PUCCH overlaps only one OCC group
Case 3: it is not first slot of an OCC group, and PUCCH overlaps with more than one OCC group
Proposal 4: When a DCI triggers A-CSI report on PUSCH, the A-CSI multiplex on all repetitions of the first PUSCH OCC group.
Proposal 5: For PUCCH overlaps with inter-slot OCC with any PUSCH repetitions in an OCC group
When there is only SR on PUCCH without repetition, SR is dropping (Option 1), as same as legacy.
When HARQ-ACK and or CSI on PUCCH without repetition overlaps with PUSCH in the first repetition of a OCC group, the UCI of PUCCH can be multiplexed on the PUSCH OCC group(Option 3-a), otherwise the UCI on PUCCH is dropped (Option 1).
For PUCCH with repetitions, it expected the overlapping aligns with the start of an OCC group, and UCI is transmitted on PUCCH, and all PUSCH repetitions within the OCC group are dropped (Option 2)
Proposal 6: For inter-slot time-domain OCC with PUSCH repetition Type A, frequency only hops across different PUSCH OCC group, and there is no hop among repetitions in one PUSCH OCC group.
The RB start index in inter-slot frequency hopping with DMRS bundling can be used as baseline. 
Proposal 7: For PUSCH transmission with DCI dynamic scheduling, the following two OCC sequence index determination methods can be considered.
Option 1: The OCC used for PUSCH transmission is implicitly determined by legacy parameter.
Option 2: The OCC used for PUSCH transmission is explicitly indicated by the scheduling DCI.
Proposal 8: For PUSCH transmission with DCI dynamic scheduling, OCC length can be indicated by DCI. 
Proposal 9: For configured grant type 1, the OCC used for PUSCH transmission can be configured through RRC.
Proposal 10: For configured grant type 2, the following two OCC determination methods can be considered.
Option 1: The OCC used for PUSCH transmission is implicitly determined by legacy parameter.
Option 2: The OCC used for PUSCH transmission is explicitly indicated by the scheduling DCI.
Proposal 11: For CG-PUSCH transmission with inter-slot OCC, OCC length is configured by RRC signaling.

3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #120bis	R1-2501901
Wuhan, China, April 7th – 11th, 2025

Title 	:  Discussion on UL capacity enhancement for NR NTN
Source 	:  ZTE Corporation, Sanechips
Agenda item	:  9.11.3
Document for	:  Discussion

Conclusion
In this contribution, the simulation assumption and OCC design are discussed with following observations and proposals.
Proposal 1: If PUCCH without repetition overlaps with OCC based PUSCH, no matter whether Option 3-a is supported or not, combination of these options is required to address the issue in the following cases:
When PUCCH and PUSCH have different priorities
When PUCCH has higher priority index than PUSCH, Option 2 is adopted
When PUSCH has higher priority index than PUCCH, Option 1 is adopted
When UCI includes SR,
If data is transmitted in PUSCH, Option 1 is adopted;
If data is not included in PUSCH, Option 2 is adopted;
When UCI includes CSI report,
If CSI report is transmitted in PUSCH, Option 1 is adopted;
Proposal 2: If PUCCH without repetition overlaps with OCC based PUSCH, and if Option 3-a is supported as baseline, the following exceptional cases need to be additionally handled:
When timeline condition cannot be satisfied,
If UCI includes HARQ ACK, Option 2 is adopted;
If UCI does not include HARQ ACK, Option 1 is adopted.
Proposal 3: If PUCCH with repetitions overlap with OCC based PUSCH, all repetitions in the OCC groups that include theses overlapped PUSCH repetitions can be dropped.
Proposal 4: For CSI report multiplexing on OCC based PUSCH, the CSI report is transmitted on all PUSCH repetitions in the OCC group(s) that include the first transmission occasion associated with first and/or second SRS resource set.
Proposal 5: Frequency hopping is not configured for OCC based PUSCH.
Proposal 6: For dynamic grant based PUSCH transmission, OCC sequence index can be implicitly indicated in DCI by association with DMRS port.
Proposal 7: For configured grant based PUSCH transmission, OCC enabler and OCC sequence index can be indicated in RRC signalling.
Proposal 8: Single parameter with 1 bit {OCC-2, OCC-4} can be used to indicate OCC length in RRC signalling for both DG and CG based PUSCH transmission.
When OCC length is larger than repetition number, the length of OCC sequence needs to be adapted to the repetition number.
Proposal 9: Single parameter with 1 bit {enabler, disabled} can be used to enable or disable OCC functionality in RRC signalling for both DG and CG based PUSCH transmission.
Proposal 10: UEs supporting capability of corresponding OCC length can be assumed as having the capability of maintaining the phase continuity over the transmissions in an OCC group. 

3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #120bis	R1-2501974
Wuhan, China, April 7th – 11th, 2025

Agenda Item:	9.11.3
Source:	CATT
Title:	         Discussion on UL capacity enhancement for NR NTN 
Document for:	Discussion and Decision

Conclusion
In this contribution, we analzyed potential issues of UL capacity enhancement for NR NTN, and the observations proposals are listed as follows:
The UE cannot transmit PUSCH and PUCCH simultaneously in a single carrier, regardless of whether the PUSCH and PUCCH are allocated in different PRBs or not.
Significant impact on the specification would be introduced if UCI is dropped.
UCI is multiplexed on all PUSCH repetitions within an OCC group for inter-slot OCC.
The impact of timenline should be considered if UCI is multiplexed on PUSCH.
Unified rules for all UCIs can be defined.
All PUSCH repetitions within the OCC group are transmitted, and UCI is drop when the multiplexing timeline cannot be met. 

Both RV cycling and fixed RV can be additionally used across OCC groups for CG-PUSCH.
For RV cycling for OCC with CG-PUSCH, RV cycling is used across OCC groups.
The overlap of PUSCH and PUCCH is only related to time overlapping. 
If PUCCH without repetition overlaps with inter-slot OCC with any PUSCH repetitions in an OCC group,
UCI is multiplexed on all PUSCH repetitions within an OCC group with inter-slot OCC when the multiplexing timeline can be met.  
Otherwise, drop UCI. 
If PUCCH repetitions overlap with inter-slot OCC with any PUSCH repetitions in an OCC group, UCI is transmitted on PUCCH, and all PUSCH repetitions within the OCC group are dropped.
For occ-Length for OCC with DG PUSCH, occ-Length applicable to PUSCH is configured by RRC higher-layer parameter.
For occ-Length for OCC with CG PUSCH, occ-Length applicable to PUSCH can be configured by RRC higher-layer parameter.
For occ-SequenceIndex for OCC with DG PUSCH and with CG PUSCH type 2, it can be indicated in scheduling DCI implicitly.
For occ-SequenceIndex for OCC with CG PUSCH type 1, it can be configured via RRC higher-layer parameter. 

3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #120bis		                         R1-2502033
Wuhan, China, April 7th – 11st, 2025
Agenda item:			9.11.3
Source:	China Telecom
Title:	Discussion on NR-NTN uplink capacity/throughput enhancement
Document for:		Discussion

Conclusions
In this contribution, we provide our views on potential signaling aspects and have the following proposals:
Proposal 1: Potential enhancements for the UCI multiplexing when using the inter-slot time domain OCC are needed. 
Support Option 3-a: UCI is multiplexed on all PUSCH repetitions within an OCC group with inter-slot OCC. 
If Option 3-a cannot be applied, support Option 2: UCI is transmitted on PUCCH, and all PUSCH repetitions within the OCC group are dropped.
Proposal 2: For inter-slot OCC with PUSCH repetition type A, intra-slot frequency hopping should be avoided.
Proposal 3: The granularity of frequency hopping should be extended to the OCC group or the entire OCC if inter-slot frequency hopping is configured. It should be further considered whether to support inter-slot frequency hopping between OCC groups. 
Proposal 4: OCC parameters can be configured by DCI or RRC, which includes at least OCC length and OCC sequence index.
For DG PUSCH and CG Type 2 PUSCH: indicated in DCI 
For CG Type 1 PUSCH: configured via higher-layer parameter configuredGrantConfig

3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #120bis		                                                    R1-2502083
Wuhan, China, April 7th – 11st, 2025

Agenda Item:	9.11.3
Source:	NEC
Title:	NR-NTN uplink capacity/throughput enhancement
Document for:	Discussion 

Conclusion
From the discussion, we have the following proposals.

Proposal 1: Support conditional UCI dropping (Option 1) if PUCCH without repetition overlaps with inter-slot OCC involving any PUSCH repetitions in an OCC group. The conditions for dropping should, at least, include: 1) UCI types, 2) priority order, 3) exact slot boundaries, and processing timelines for overlapping PUCCH and PUSCH.

Proposal 2: RAN1 will not pursue the dropping of PUSCH repetitions (Option 2) if PUCCH without repetition overlaps with inter-slot OCC involving any PUSCH repetitions in an OCC group.

Proposal 3: Restrict UCI multiplexing to Option 3-a if PUCCH without repetition overlaps with inter-slot OCC involving any PUSCH repetitions in an OCC group.

Proposal 4: The combination of Options 1 and 3-a is permissible only if UCI dropping conditions are satisfied.

Proposal 5: For DG PUSCH:
Configure OCC-Length candidates via RRC higher-layer parameters.
Indicate applicable OCC-Length in DG scheduling DCI.

Proposal 6: For CG PUSCH Type 2:
Configure OCC-Length candidates via RRC higher-layer parameters.
Indicate applicable OCC-Length in CG Type 2 activation DCI.

Proposal 7: For DG PUSCH, explicitly indicate OCC-SequenceIndex via scheduling DCI.

Proposal 8: For CG PUSCH Type 2, explicitly indicate OCC-SequenceIndex via activation DCI.

3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #120-bis	R1-2502131
Wuhan, China, April 7th – 11th, 2025
Source:	Fujitsu
Title:	Discussion on uplink capacity/cell throughput enhancement for FR1-NTN
Agenda Item:	9.11.3
Document for:	Discussion

Conclusion
In this contribution, we provide our views as below.
Observation 1: For indication of occ-Length with Option 2 and DG/CG type 2 PUSCH, OCC application can be controlled with existing DCI. As an example, when the largest value of supported OCC length is configured by cell specific signalling (e.g. SIB19), UE can use the maximum supported OCC length less than the actual number of PUSCH repetitions.


Proposal 1: For OCC length indication with DG/CG type 2 PUSCH, support Option 2 to reduce signalling overhead.

Proposal 2: For OCC length indication with CG type 1 PUSCH, support the following method.
max value of occ-Length is configured by RRC higher-layer parameter, and occ-Length applicable to PUSCH is determined based on the configured repetition number (i.e., rep-K).

Proposal 3: For indication of occ-SequenceIndex for OCC with DG/CG type 1/CG type 2, support Option 2 which implicitly associates occ-SequenceIndex with DM-RS antenna port.

Proposal 4: TBoMS with OCC should be discussed after determining OCC details.

3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #120bis  	 R1-2502175
Wuhan, China, April 7th – 11th, 2025
Source: 	CMCC
Title:	Discussion on the NR-NTN uplink capacity/throughput enhancements
Agenda item:	9.11.3
Document for:	Discussion & Decision

Conclusions
In this contribution, we discuss potential enhancements on OCC based uplink capacity/throughput enhancement and provide preliminary LLS simulation results. The observations and proposals are listed below. 

Proposal 1: 
If PUCCH without repetition overlaps with inter-slot OCC with any PUSCH repetitions in an OCC group, the following options are supported.
If certain timeline condition is satisfied, support Option 3-a.
Option 3-a: UCI is multiplexed on all PUSCH repetitions within an OCC group with inter-slot OCC
Otherwise, either Alt 1 or Alt 2 is supported.
Alt 1: Support Option 2 and UE doesn’t expect PUCCH and PUSCH are overlapped in frequency.
Option 2: UCI is transmitted on PUCCH, and all PUSCH repetitions within the OCC group are dropped.
Alt 2: if PUCCH and PUSCH are not overlapped in frequency, support Option 2, otherwise, support Option 1 as a fallback solution.
Option 1: UCI is dropped

Proposal 2: 
UE doesn’t expect multiple PUCCHs overlapping with an OCC group.

Proposal 3: 
For Option 3-a, regarding which OCC group (called reference OCC group) is used to multiplexing UCI, the following two options can be further considered:
Option 3-a-1 (Overlapped OCC Group): The referred OCC group is the current overlapped OCC group.
Option 3-a-2 (Next Available OCC Group): The referred OCC group is the next OCC group which satisfy the timeline condition.

Proposal 4: 
RAN1 will not pursue Option 3-b and Option 3-c.

Proposal 5: 
If a PUCCH with repetition overlaps with any PUSCH repetitions within an OCC group using inter-slot OCC, UCI is transmitted on PUCCH, and all PUSCH repetitions within the overlapped OCC group are dropped.

Proposal 6:
The indication of OCC sequence can be either explicit or implicit.

Proposal 7:
It should be further studied whether to support the frequency hopping in the NTN scenario and with the OCC multiplexing in the time domain.

3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #120bis                                  			               R1-2502190
Wuhan, China, April 7th – 11th, 2025

Agenda Item:	9.11.3	
Source:	InterDigital, Inc.
Title:	NR-NTN uplink capacity/throughput enhancement
Document for:	Discussion

Conclusions
In this contribution, the following observations are made:
Observation 1: Options 3-b and 3-c for UCI multiplexing will lead to increased interference due to non-orthogonal transmissions. 
Observation 2: UCI multiplexing to OCC based PUSCH transmissions will require additional timing restrictions on the UCI availability.
The observations have led to the following proposals:
Proposal 1: Uplink capacity enhancements are supported for both dynamic grant and configured grant types of uplink transmissions.
Proposal 2: OCC configuration and OCC index is configured to the UE for CG Type 1 transmissions as part of RRC configuration. 
Proposal 3: For CG Type 2, OCC configuration is through RRC signaling and the OCC index is indicated through activation DCI.
Proposal 4: For DG, OCC configuration is through RRC signaling and the OCC index is indicated through scheduling DCI.
Proposal 5: For UCI multiplexing, Option 3-a is supported as baseline. 
Proposal 6: UCI is multiplexed in the OCC group which comprises the UCI slot.
Proposal 7: A UE will multiplex UCI over OCC based PUSCH if the UCI becomes available to the UE prior to the start of the 1st symbol of OCC group minus the PUSCH preparation time.
Proposal 8: Support dropping UCI (e.g., CSI and/or HARQ FB) for OCC based PUSCH transmissions. 
Proposal 9: Support OCC based PUSCH transmissions with TBoMS.  

3GPP TSG-RAN WG1 Meeting #120bis	R1-2502221
Wuhan, China, April 7th-11th, 2025

Agenda Item:	9.11.3
Source:	Huawei, HiSilicon
Title:	Discussion on uplink capacity/throughput enhancement for FR1-NTN
Document for:	Discussion and Decision

Conclusion
In this contribution, the potential specification changes to support inter-slot OCC are discussed. The observations and proposals are summarized as the following: 
Proposal 1: If PUCCH without repetition overlaps with inter-slot OCC with any PUSCH repetitions in an OCC group, support Option 3-a: “UCI is multiplexed on all PUSCH repetitions within an OCC group with inter-slot OCC”, when applicable. 
Proposal 2: When the associated timeline conditions are not satisfied for the first slot within the OCC group, the UCI carrying HARQ-ACK codebook and/or CSI report should be dropped.
Proposal 3: For handling PUCCH and PUSCH with different priorities, the following mechanism can be followed: 
When PUCCH of smaller priority index overlaps with PUSCH repetitions with larger priority index within an OCC group in time domain regardless of frequency domain, PUCCH is dropped;
When the PUCCH of larger priority index overlaps with PUSCH repetitions with smaller priority index within an OCC group in time domain only, all PUSCH repetitions within the OCC group are dropped;
When the PUCCH of larger priority index overlaps with PUSCH repetitions with smaller priority index within an OCC group in both time domain and frequency domain, UCI is multiplexed on all PUSCH repetitions within an OCC group, when applicable.
Proposal 4: For inter-slot time domain OCC with PUSCH repetition type A, when multiple PUCCHs including different UCI types overlap with slots in the same OCC group, the UE can multiplex HARQ-ACK and/or CSI information on every slot of the OCC group.
Proposal 5: For inter-slot time domain OCC with PUSCH repetition type A, gNB should avoid scheduling/configuring multiple PUCCHs including the same UCI type in the same OCC group. 
Proposal 6: For inter-slot time domain OCC with PUSCH repetition type A, SR in UCI should be dropped when a PUCCH overlaps with PUSCH within an OCC group.
Proposal 7: For inter-slot time domain OCC with PUSCH repetition type A, UCI could be multiplexed on every slot of PUSCH OCC group(s) if the PUCCH repetitions overlap with the OCC group and the timeline conditions are satisfied for the first slot within the group. 
Proposal 8: When semi-static betaOffsets are applied when UCI is multiplexed on a PUSCH, separate sets of ,  can be configured and applied when UCI is multiplexed on PUSCH with or without inter slot OCC.
Proposal 9: For inter-slot time-domain OCC with PUSCH repetition type A, the time interval of inter-slot frequency hopping should be extended to a number of slots aligned with the time span of an OCC sequence, and intra-slot frequency hopping should be avoided. 
Proposal 10: For PUSCH transmission corresponding to configured grant type 1, OCC-related parameters, such as occ-Index and occ-Length, can be configured within configuredGrantConfig together with repK.
Proposal 11: For PUSCH transmission corresponding to the configured grant type 2, occ-Index can be associated with antenna port indicated in the activation DCI, while occ-Length can be configured within configuredGrantConfig together with repK.
Proposal 12: For dynamic granted based PUSCH, occ-Index can be associated with antenna port indicated in the scheduling DCI, while occ-Length can be configured in PUSCH-Config or PUSCH-Allocation-r16 depending on where the repetition number is configured. 
Proposal 13: Power consistency and phase continuity should be maintained at least among the slots of an OCC group. The self-adjustment of TA/CFO by UE from the 2nd slot in an OCC group should not be performed.
Proposal 14: To support inter-slot OCC with PUSCH repetition type A in Rel-19 for FR1-NTN, the RRC parameters in Table 1 should be introduced.

3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #120bis		R1-2502267
Wuhan, China, April 7th - 11th, 2025

Source:	OPPO
Title:	Discussion on NR-NTN uplink capacity/throughput enhancement 
Agenda Item:	9.11.3
Document for:	Discussion and Decision

Conclusion
In this contribution, we discuss the potential specification impacts to support PUSCH repetition Type A with inter-slot OCC in NR-NTN. The following proposals are made.
Proposal 1: OCC length and OCC index should be indicated to UE for both DG-PUSCH and CG-PUSCH. 
Proposal 2: Considering Option 2 and Option 3-a as candidate options for UCI multiplexing on PUSCH repetition Type A with inter-slot OCC.
Proposal 3: UCI is transmitted with the same OCC sequence as PUSCH if Option 3-a is supported.
Proposal 4: For PUSCH repetition Type A with inter-slot OCC, PUSCH transmissions should be omitted in unit of OCC group if required.
Proposal 5: For PUSCH repetition Type A with inter-slot OCC, PUSCH frequency hopping should be performed in unit of OCC group if inter-slot frequency hopping is configured.

3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #120bis		                           R1-2502385
Wuhan, China, April 7th – 11th, 2025
Agenda item:		9.11.3
Source:			Samsung
Title:			Discussion on uplink capacity/throughput enhancement for NR-NTN
Document for:		Discussion and decision

Conclusion
This contribution discussed on remaining issues for uplink capacity/throughput enhancements. Followings are proposals in this contribution. 
Proposal 1: If PUCCH with or without repetitions overlaps with inter-slot OCC with any PUSCH repetitions in an OCC group, RAN1 supports dropping all the PUSCH repetitions if at least one PUSCH repetition is dropped due to overlapping with a PUCCH with repetitions.  
All the PUSCH repetitions in the OCC group are considered as in the group of overlapping channels for timeline conditions.
Proposal 2: RAN1 does not pursue power control enhancement for inter-slot OCC PUSCH.
Proposal 3: RAN1 discusses performance benefit in order to decide whether to enhancement frequency hopping for inter-slot OCC PUSCH.
Proposal 4: RAN1 defers the decision whether to support TBoMS for PUSCH with OCC in Rel-19 NTN.
Proposal 5: RAN1 does not discuss further whether to limit the number of PRBs applicable to OCC PUSCH. 

3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #120bis	                       R1- 2502409
China, Wuhan, April 7th – April 11th, 2025
Agenda Item: 9.11.3
Source:	TCL
Title: Discussion on the NR-NTN uplink capacity/throughput enhancements
Document for: Discussion and Decision

Conclusion
In this contribution, we provided our views on NR-NTN uplink capacity enhancements. Our observations and proposals are as follows:
Proposal 1: OCC sequence index can be indicated in DCI by reusing the bits from other bit fields or encoding with other domains jointly.
Proposal 2: The OCC for configured grant Type 1 PUSCH can be accomplished through RRC.
Proposal 3: Special fields of the CS-RNTI scrambled DCI can be utilized for explicit indication of OCC for configured grant Type 2 PUSCH.
Proposal 4: For OCC across slots, at least the total number of repetitions after OCC spreading should be studied.
Proposal 5: For inter-slot OCC, the solution when the number of repetitions is greater than the length of the OCC sequence should be studied.
Proposal 6: For inter-slot OCC, the UCI block-wise spread with OCC after multiplexing or the repetition of the UCI or PUCCH can be considered.
Proposal 7: UCI multiplexing can be postponed to the next OCC period when the overlap does not occur in the first slot of the OCC period.
Proposal 8: The following options for multiplexing multiple UCIs can be considered:
Option 1: Only one UCI is allowed to multiplex on PUSCH
Option 2: Multiple UCIs can be multiplexed on one PUSCH
Option 3: Disable the multiplexing of multiple UCIs
Proposal 9: For inter-slot OCC, the UCI can be spread across the PUSCH with OCC if the PUCCH with repetition overlaps with the first slot within the OCC group.
Proposal 10: If the multiple PUCCHs with repetitions overlap the OCC group, the following options can be considered:
Option 1: Only one PUCCH with repetition can be multiplexed with PUSCH with OCC.
Option 2: The non-overlapping parts after the multiplex between two PUCCH with repetition can be dropped.
Proposal 11: A group-common DCI to schedule the transmission of multiple UEs with OCC on the same resources can be studied to improve the overhead of signaling.

3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #120bis			R1-2502456
Wuhan, China, April 7th – 11th, 2025


Source: 	     Xiaomi
Title:	Discussion on NR-NTN PUSCH capacity enhancement 
Agenda item:       9.11.3
Document for:    Discussion and Decision

Conclusion  
In this contribution, we discuss the normative work of NR-NTN PUSCH capacity enhancement. Based on the discussion, our views are summarized as follows.

Proposal 1: Support OCC multiplexing for CG type 2 PUSCH.
Proposal 2: Support OCC multiplexing for DCI format 0_1 and DCI format 0_2.
Proposal 3: Configure the OCC length by RRC signalling.
Proposal 4: Implicitly enable the OCC multiplexing by the configuration of the OCC length.
Proposal 5: Implicitly indicate the OCC sequence index via the antenna port field in the scheduling DCI, with a mapping relationship between OCC sequence indexes and DMRS ports and/or DMRS sequences.
Proposal 6: For OCC with CG PUSCH, RV cycling across OCC groups and its corresponding RV sequence are configured by the RRC parameter repK-RV. 
Proposal 7: If PUCCH without repetition overlaps with inter-slot OCC with any PUSCH repetitions in an OCC group, the following options to be considered:
Option 1: UCI is dropped.
Option 2: it is up to gNB scheduling to avoid the UCI multiplexing on PUSCH without any spec impact.
Proposal 8: Mandate support for inter-group frequency hopping for inter-slot OCC multiplexing.
Proposal 9: Utilize the existing frequency hopping flag in the scheduling DCI to enable the inter-group frequency hopping for OCC multiplexing.

3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #120bis	R1-2502521
Wuhan, China, April 7th – 11th, 2025
Agenda item:	9.11.3
Source: 	ETRI
Title:	Discussion on NR-NTN uplink capacity/throughput enhancement
Document for:	Discussion/Decision

Conclusion
In this contribution, ETRI’s views on NR-NTN uplink capacity/throughput enhancement were shown and the following proposals were made:
Proposal 1. For DG PUSCH:
Candidates of occ-Length: On top of the UE capability reports on OCC length 2 and 4, introduce an RRC signalling to configure candidates of occ-Length
occ-Length & occ-Sequence are explicitly indicated by DCI (no association with other DCI fields)
Proposal 2. For CG PUSCH type 2:
Candidates of occ-Length: On top of the UE capability reports on OCC length 2 and 4, introduce an RRC signalling to configure candidates of occ-Length
occ-Length & occ-Sequence are explicitly indicated by DCI (no association with other DCI fields)
Proposal 3. For CG PUSCH type 1:
Candidates of occ-Length: No need to be configured (only one pair of occ-Length and occ-Sequence is configured)
occ-Length & occ-Sequence are explicitly configured by RRC (no association with other parameters)
Proposal 4. For DG PUSCH, For CG PUSCH type 2, and CG PUSCH type 1,
OCC is disabled, if occ-Length configuration/indication is absent
OCC is disabled, if occ-Length is not configured as 2 nor 4
Proposal 5. RAN1 to agree the following details on OCC sequence configuration/indication:
Introduce a new RRC configuration to enable one or more OCC techniques (candidates of occ-Length) among the following possible options:
No OCC (legacy operation)
Inter-slot OCC with OCC length 2 to multiplex up to 2 UEs (agreed) 
OCC sequence for PUSCH transmission scheduled by DCI format 0_0
Inter-slot OCC with OCC length 4 to multiplex up to 4 UEs (agreed)
OCC sequence for PUSCH transmission scheduled by DCI format 0_0
Introduce a new MAC CE or a new/extended DCI field
occ-Length indication among the candidates of occ-Length 
Note: This field is required, only if both OCC length 2 and 4 are configured for for PUSCH transmission scheduled by DCI format 0_1, 0_2, or 0_3
Note: This field might be omitted, e.g., for CG PUSCH type 1
occ-Sequence indication for PUSCH transmission scheduled by DCI format 0_1, 0_2, or 0_3
Note: This field could be considered as not only OCC sequence indication but also occ-Length indication (e.g., if RAN2 jointly encodes occ-Length and occ-Sequence)
Proposal 6. Regarding the OCC sequence, support the following orthogonal sequences for OCC length 4
Proposal 7. RAN1 to clarify whether or not to support OCC for TBoMS transmission in NTN. If supported, RAN1 to consider the following cases:
Case #1: numberOfSlotsTBoMS = 2, numberOfRepetitions = 2
Case #2: numberOfSlotsTBoMS = 2, numberOfRepetitions = 4
Case #3: numberOfSlotsTBoMS = 2, numberOfRepetitions = 8

Proposal 8. RAN1 to clarify the total number of PUSCH repetitions with OCC schemes:
Option#1: total number of PUSCH repetitions =  (legacy)
: numberOfSlotsTBoMS
: numberOfRepetitions
The total number of repetitions ( is multiples of OCC length 
Option#2: total number of PUSCH repetitions =  (new)

3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #120	R1-2502534
Wuhan, China, 7 – 11 April 2025 
Agenda item:		9.11.3
Source:	Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell
Title:	Discussion of NR-NTN uplink capacity enhancements 
WI code:	NR_NTN_Ph3
Release:	Rel-19
Document for:		Discussion and Decision

Conclusion
In this contribution we have presented our views, which is best summarized through our observations and proposals which are as follows:
Observation 1: Excessive number of resources will be occupied by a UCI if the UCI is multiplexed on all PUSCH repetitions within an OCC period.
Observation 2: The loss in scaling the UCI is compensated for by the UCI repetitions across the OCC period.
Observation 3: There could be multiple UCIs occurring in multiple slots of an OCC period. And the PUCCH vs. PUSCH overlapping handling for these UCIs could be different. So an OCC period level PUCCH vs. PUSCH overlapping handling rule is needed. 
Observation 4: There could be only a sub-set UCIs which could be available in the first slot of an OCC period.
Observation 5: In current specifications, multiplexing of HARQ-ACK and CSI from a same slot is already supported.
Observation 6: Based on current specification, there will be more than one CSI reference resource for a CSI report if the CSI report is multiplexed on PUSCH repetitions with OCC enabled, which is not as expected.
Observation 7: A CSI report could always be available in the first slot of an OCC period if the associated CSI reference resource is determined by the minimum required CSI processing time plus the time consumed by (OCC_LEN – 1) slots, and the performance impact by shifting the associated CSI reference resource is negligible in NTN. 
Observation 8: In the case of inter-slot (i.e. PUSCH repetitions Type A) OCC, frequency hopping might impair applicability of OCC.
Observation 9: Definition of an additional field in the DCI might be excessive since the field would have to be considered reserved (or anyway not used) each time UE is either not scheduled with repetitions or not scheduled with DFT-s-OFDM.
Observation 10: Applying GNSS update during OCC time window may break OCC orthogonality.

Proposal 1: For inter-slot OCC, in case a UE experiences an event that breaks phase consistency, the UE shall drop the remaining PUSCH repetitions within the OCC period. 
Proposal 2: For inter-slot OCC, in case a UE is able to foresee an event that breaks phase consistency within an OCC period, the UE shall drop the entire transmission during the given OCC period.
Proposal 3. RAN1 to conclude that it is not expected that the UE applies autonomous event(s) within an OCC period.
Proposal 4: Introduce a scaling factor on the number of resources occupied by the multiplexed UCI, when the UCI is multiplexed in all the repetitions of an OCC period.
Proposal 5: UE handling of an event of UCI multiplexing within an OCC period is conditional to whether the scheduling DCI is received earlier than a time offset from the start of the OCC period.
Proposal 6: Support a modified version of Option 3-a: UE multiplexes UCI to all the repetitions of the OCC period if the scheduling DCI is received earlier than a time offset from the start of the OCC period.
Proposal 7: Define different UE behaviours for UCI handling based on timing conditions.
Proposal 8: UE postpones UCI multiplexing to the subsequent OCC group of the same set of PUSCH repetitions if the scheduling DCI is received later than a time offset from the start of the OCC period.
Proposal 9. In the case of PUCCH repetitions colliding with PUSCH repetitions with inter-slot OCC, UE prioritizes the channel whose repetitions start earlier and drops the later channel, or part of it.
Proposal 10: RAN1 to define collision handling rules for multiple UCI within one OCC group, where existing PUCCH vs. PUSCH collision handling acts as a baseline.
Proposal 11. According to the multiple UCI collision handling rule, UE drops all the PUSCH repetitions within an OCC group if at least one of the PUSCH repetitions is dropped based on the existing PUCCH vs. PUSCH overlapping handling.
Proposal 12: RAN1 to support multiplexing of HARQ-ACK from one slot and CSI from another slot within an OCC group, if allowed by the processing timelines.
Proposal 13: If a periodic and semi-persistent CSI report is multiplexed with PUSCH in an OCC group, the CSI reference resource for the CSI report is based on the first UL slot of the OCC group.
Proposal 14: Alternatively, the CSI reference resource associated to a CSI report is shifted earlier by (OCC_LEN - 1) slots when OCC is configured for PUSCH transmissions.
Proposal 15: Discuss extension of the inter-slot frequency hopping with inter-slot bundling for PUSCH feature in case of PUSCH repetitions Type A with OCC.
Proposal 16: RAN1 to define signalling mechanisms for indication of OCC parameters based on repurposing of part of the MCS and/or FDRA fields of the DCI scheduling the PUSCH.
Proposal 17: Dynamic DCI signalling might feature an index that specifies to the UE the position of OCC application in relation to the first PUSCH transmission. 
Proposal 18: RAN1 to explore methods to address potential issues with GNSS update when OCC is applied. The methods should specify rules and requirement at UE side and coordination with NW to avoid timing misalignment. 
Proposal 19: RAN1 to further discuss the higher layer parameters to use for UL capacity enhancements for NR over NTN.

3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #120bis		R1- 2502589
Wuhan, China, April 7th – 11th, 2025
Agenda Item:	9.11.3
Source:	Lenovo
Title:	Discussion on NR-NTN Uplink Capacity/Throughput Enhancement 
Document for:	Discussion

Conclusion [RAN1#117]
OCC with PUSCH can support at least multiplexing of 2 or 4 UEs and achieve up to 2 or 4 times capacity gains respectively, when repetitions are used.
Note: the actual gain may be less due to e.g. intra/inter cell interference.

Agreement [RAN1#117]
For the normative phase, at least one of the OCC techniques will be specified:
Inter-slot time-domain OCC with PUSCH repetition Type A with OCC length 2 or 4
Inter-symbol(s) time domain OCC with OCC length 2 or 4
Intra-symbol pre-DFT-s OCC (comb-like structure as in PUCCH format 4) with OCC length 2 or 4
FFS Combination of OCC techniques including multiplexing of 8 UEs
FFS Use of OCC techniques with TBoMS
FFS Backward compatibility with non-Rel-19 UEs

RAN1#116-bis meeting agreement
Agreement
Support OCC for PUSCH in Rel-19 NR NTN:
At least PUSCH with Type A repetition
FFS PUSCH without Type A repetition for intra-symbol and/or inter-symbol cases
At least code length 2 or 4, FFS code length 8 
FFS: number of RBs
Potential OCC techniques listed below are for further down-selection:
Inter-slot time-domain OCC with PUSCH repetition Type A 
Inter-symbol(s) time domain OCC 
Intra-symbol pre-DFT-s OCC (comb-like structure as in PUCCH format 4)
Combinations of OCC techniques
TBoMS for OCC techniques is FFS

Agreement
RAN1 to at least further study the potential specification aspects on OCC techniques:
TBS calculation / Rate matching
UCI multiplexing
RV cycling across repetitions
Frequency hopping, e.g. intra /inter slot
OCC indication/configuration
Power control
FFS others aspects


RAN1#116 meeting agreement

Agreement
Adopt the table below for assumptions for Evaluation parameters for link level evaluation in NR NTN UL capacity and throughput enhancements



Agreement
Adopt the table below for assumptions for modelling impairments for link level evaluation in NR NTN UL capacity and throughput enhancements

Agreement
Adopt the table below for assumptions for KPIs for link level evaluation in NR NTN UL capacity and throughput enhancements





Agreement
Adopt the table below for assumptions for Evaluation parameters for link level evaluation in NR NTN UL capacity and throughput enhancements



Agreement
Adopt the table below for assumptions for modelling impairments for link level evaluation in NR NTN UL capacity and throughput enhancements

Agreement
Adopt the table below for assumptions for KPIs for link level evaluation in NR NTN UL capacity and throughput enhancements

3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #120bis			R1-2502631
Wuhan, China, April 7th – 11st, 2025

Agenda Item:	9.11.3
Source:	Apple
Title:	On NR-NTN Uplink Capacity Enhancement
Document for:	Discussion/Decision

Conclusion
In this contribution, we provided our views on NR-NTN uplink capacity enhancements. Our proposals are as follows:

Proposal 1: For TBoMS based PUSCH transmissions with repetition, support slot-based OCC spreading.
The same RV value is used in N OCC groups,
RV cycling across N OCC groups is supported, 
where N is the number of slots per TB.

Proposal 2: If PUCCH without repetition overlaps with any PUSCH repetition in an OCC group, support UCI is multiplexed on all PUSCH repetitions within an OCC group (Option 3-a) as the baseline, with exceptional cases discussed separately. 

Proposal 3: If PUCCH without repetition overlaps with any PUSCH repetition in an OCC group, support UCI is transmitted on PUCCH, and all PUSCH repetitions within the OCC group are dropped (Option 2), if 
the first uplink symbol of the first PUSCH in the OCC group overlapping with PUCCH is within after the end of the last symbol of triggering PDCCH, and 
there is no subsequent OCC group. 

Proposal 4: If multiple PUCCHs without repetition overlap with PUSCH repetitions in an OCC group, support 
the earliest UCI is multiplexed on all PUSCH repetitions within an OCC group (Option 3-a), 
the later UCI(s) are dropped (Option 1). 

Proposal 5: If PUCCH without repetition overlaps with any PUSCH repetition in an OCC group, if PUCCH and PUSCH have different priorities, the one with high priority is transmitted and the one with low priority is dropped.

Proposal 6: If PUCCH without repetition overlaps with any PUSCH repetition in an OCC group,
if UCI contains SR and PUSCH does not contain data, then UCI is transmitted on PUCCH, and all PUSCH repetitions within the OCC group are dropped (Option 2).
if UCI contains SR and PUSCH contains data, then UCI is dropped (Option 1). 
 
Proposal 7: If PUCCH repetition overlaps with any PUSCH repetition in an OCC group, then PUCCH repetition is transmitted and all the PUSCH repetitions in the OCC group are dropped.

Proposal 8: RAN1 to determine whether to reduce the resource allocation of UCI if it is multiplexed on PUSCH repetitions in an OCC period.

Proposal 9: For PUSCH enhancement via OCC spreading, RAN1 to consider dynamic grant PUSCH, type 1 configured grant PUSCH and type 2 configured grant PUSCH.

Proposal 10: For type 1 configured grant PUSCH, OCC length and OCC sequence index are included in RRC configuration (i.e., ConfiguredGrantConfig). 

Proposal 11: For dynamic grant PUSCH and type 2 configured grant PUSCH, OCC length is configured via RRC (i.e., ConfiguredGrantConfig or PUSCH-Config), while OCC sequence index is indicated via DCI.
Introduce a new field in DCI to indicate OCC sequence index.

3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #120-bis		R1-2502697
Wuhan, China, April 7th – 11st, 2025
Agenda Item:	9.11.3
Source:	HONOR
Title:	Discussion on NR-NTN UL capacity/throughput enhancement
Document for:	Discussion and Decision

Conclusions
In this contribution, we provide our views on NR-NTN Uplink Capacity/Throughput Enhancement with the following and proposals.
Proposal 1: Support the combination of Option 1 and Option 3-a, i.e. the UCI is multiplexed on PUSCH with inter-slot OCC or dropped.
Proposal 2: If the scheduling DCI is received later than a time offset from the first slot of the OCC period, the UCI could be postponed to the next OCC group or dropped.
Proposal 3: The dropping rules for UCI can be related to the type of UCI.
Proposal 4: Introduce a scaling factor to scale down , thereby reducing the number of resources occupied by UCI when UCI is multiplexed on all slots of the OCC group.
Proposal 5: For the configured grant Type 1 PUSCH transmission, the OCC-related parameters should be configured by RRC. 
Proposal 6: For the configured grant Type 2 PUSCH transmission and the dynamic granted based PUSCH transmission, the OCC sequence index can be associated with the antenna port indicated by DCI, while the OCC length can be configured by RRC.
Proposal 7: If the OCC sequence index is associated with antenna port indicated by DCI, additional indication can be added in the RRC to indicate different associations for different users in order to increase the flexibility of the OCC sequence index indication.
Proposal 8: Support inter-slot OCC with TBoMS for PUSCH and each part of TBoMS is repeated OCC length times in sequence, and one OCC group includes the repetitions of one part of TBoMS.

3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #120bis		R1-2502698
Wuhan, China, April 7th – 11th, 2025

Source:	Panasonic
Title: 	Uplink capacity/throughput enhancement for NR-NTN
Agenda Item:		9.11.3
Document for:	Discussion and decision

Conclusion 
In this contribution, UL capacity/throughput enhancement using OCC for DFT-s-OFDM PUSCH was discussed. The following observations and proposals were made. 
Proposal 1: Support Option 3-a: “UCI is multiplexed on all PUSCH repetitions within an OCC group with inter-slot OCC” as a baseline. 
Proposal 2: When UCI transmission timing is the first slot in an OCC group, the UCI is multiplexed with PUSCH and repeated over the OCC group. When UCI transmission timing is non-first slot in an OCC group, PUSCH within the OCC group is dropped. 
Proposal 3: When an UCI is multiplexed with PUSCH over an OCC group, another UCI collided in the same OCC group should be dropped. When an UCI is transmitted on PUCCH and PUSCH in the OCC group is dropped, another UCI collided in the same OCC group is transmitted on PUCCH.
Observation 1: It is necessary to specify UE behavior for non-contiguous PUSCH transmission with OCC due to e.g. collision with PRACH resource, SRS transmission and measurement gap. 
Proposal 4: UE shall maintain power and phase continuity during an OCC group.
Proposal 5: UE shall drop all PUCH within an OCC group during which power and phase continuity can not be kept.
Proposal 6: When DMRS bundling is used for PUSCH with OCC, start or end of the actual TDW should be aligned with the slot boundary between two OCC groups. 
Proposal 7: TBoMS should be supported for PUSCH with inter-slot OCC. 
Proposal 8: For TBoMS with OCC PUSCH, the same OCC should be applied to adjacent slots (i.e. OCC group consists of consecutive slots).
Observation 2: Because OCC is used together with repetition and OCC length is closely related with repetition factor, similar way as signaling of repetition factor is reasonable for signaling of OCC length. 
Proposal 9: Include OCC length in TDRA list (pusch-TimeDomainResourceAllocationList) and allow dynamic indication of OCC length in the TDRA list.  
Proposal 10: For OCC sequence and DMRS port indication, dynamic indication via DCI 0_0 should be supported. 
Proposal 11: DMRS port is implicitly indicated by linking OCC sequence number and DMRS port number.  

3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #120bis	R1-2502718
Wuhan, China, April 7th – 11th, 2025

Source:	MediaTek Inc.
Title:	NR-NTN uplink capacity and throughput enhancements
Agenda item:	9.11.3
Document for:	Discussion

Conclusion
In this contribution, we have the following observations and proposals:

UCI multiplexing:
Proposal 1: For inter-slot OCC with Option 3.a, the end of the last symbol of the triggering PDCCH is received and processed before the first symbol of PUSCH for UCI multiplexing on PUSCH overlapping with PUCCH, or with any of the PUCCH repetitions if PUCCH repetition is configured.
Otherwise, Option 2 is used.
FSS First symbol of PUSCH within an OCC group or first symbol of PUSCH within the first OCC group
Proposal 2: For inter-slot OCC with PUSCH, Option 2 is used in case of multiple UCIs within an OCC group (i.e. multiple UCIs are transmitted on PUCCH, and all PUSCH repetitions within the OCC group are dropped).
Proposal 3: For inter-slot OCC with PUSCH, Option 2 is used in case PUCCH has higher priority than PUSCH; otherwise Option 3.a or Option 1 are used in case PUSCH has higher priority.
Proposal 4: Scheduling Request is not multiplexed on PUSCH in OCC with PUSCH.

Phase continuity with OCC with PUSCH:
Proposal 5: To maintain phase continuity for OCC with PUSCH, a UE does not use a new GNSS position fix or new ephemeris to re-calculate and apply satellite delay and Doppler for UE pre-compensation during OCC group.

OCC indication/configuration:
Proposal 6:  For OCC with DG PUSCH, candidates of occ-Length are configured by RRC higher-layer parameter, and occ-Length applicable to PUSCH is indicated by scheduling DCI. 
Proposal 7:  For OCC with CG PUSCH Type 2, candidates of occ-Length are configured by RRC higher-layer parameter, and occ-Length applicable to PUSCH is indicated CG PUSCH type 2 activation DCI. 
Proposal 8: For OCC with CG PUSCH Type 1, occ-Length is configured by RRC HL parameter.
Proposal 9:  For OCC with DG PUSCH, occ-SequenceIndex is indicated implicitly – e.g. associated with antenna port indicated in the scheduling DCI for DG PUSCH. 
Proposal 10:  For OCC with CG PUSCH Type 2, occ-SequenceIndex is indicated implicitly – e.g. associated with antenna port indicated in the CG PUSCH type 2 activation DCI. 
Proposal 11: For OCC with CG PUSCH Type 1, occ-SequenceIndex is configured by RRC HL parameter.

3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #120bis		 	R1-2502781
Wuhan, CN, Apr 7th – 11th, 2025

Source:	NTT DOCOMO, INC.
Title:	Discussion on NR-NTN uplink capacity/throughput enhancement
Agenda Item:	9.11.3
Document for: 	Discussion/Decision

Conclusion
Observation:
For inter-slot OCC 2 and OCC 4, the OCC with TBoMS case has around 2dB gain at 2% BLER compared to repetition without TBoMS case.
Proposal 1:
For PUSCH inter-slot time-domain OCC, the inter-slot OCC is assigned to repetitions as follows:
If OCC length L = repetition factor N, each repetition is assigned with one bit of OCC sequence.
If OCC length L < repetition factor N, the first L repetitions are handled as the first OCC group, the second L repetitions are handled as the second OCC group, and so on.
Within each OCC group, each repetition is assigned with one bit of OCC sequence.
E.g., for OCC length = 4 and repetition=8, the OCC bits is mapped as [       ]
Proposal 2:
If PUCCH without repetition overlaps with inter-slot OCC with any PUSCH repetitions in an OCC group, support option 3-a, i.e., UCI is multiplexed on all PUSCH repetitions within an OCC group with inter-slot OCC.
The first symbol of the earliest PUSCH within the OCC group satisfies the legacy timeline conditions. 
Proposal 3:
For PUCCH with repetition overlaps with PUSCH with OCC, UCI multiplexing is not supported, the overlapped PUSCH repetitions within an OCC group are dropped.
Proposal 4: 
Discuss and specify how to handle drop of a PUSCH transmission within an OCC group in the following cases:  
PUSCH overlaps with PRACH. 
PUSCH carrying semi-persistent CSI (comprising only CQI/PMI/L1-RSRP/L1-SINR) overlaps with  
SRS. 
PUSCH overlaps other PUSCH (e.g., DG PUSCH vs. CG PUSCH, CG PUSCH vs. CG PUSCH, PUSCH associated with C-RNTI vs. Msg3/MsgA PUSCH, A-CSI on PUSCH vs. SP-CSI on PUSCH, PUSCH with UL-SCH vs. SP-CSI on PUSCH). 
PUSCH overlaps with UL transmission that has a higher priority (based on priority index). 
The UE receives a cancellation indication via DCI format 2_4. 
Half-duplex FDD (HD-FDD) operation in a RedCap/eRedCap UE. 
Proposal 5:
For the PUSCH repetitions within an OCC group, UE does not expect any event which may break the phase continuity would happen.
Note that legacy events which cause power consistency and phase continuity not to be maintained across PUSCH transmissions are reused for PUSCH with OCC.
Proposal 6:
RAN1 to discuss channel inferability for PUSCH with OCC as described in clause 6.2 of TS 38.211.
Proposal 7:
Support TBoMS for inter-slot OCC for PUSCH.
When M-slot TBoMS with N-slot repetitions is assumed, 1st part of M-slot TBoMS is repeated N times as the first OCC group, 2nd part of M-slot TBoMS is repeated N times as the second OCC group, and so on.
E.g., for OCC length = 2 with repetition=2 and TBoMS slot=2, the OCC bits is mapped as [   ].
Proposal 8:
PUSCH with OCC can be applied to CG PUSCH, DF PUSCH, and SP-CSI on PUSCH.
Other PUSCH transmissions, e.g., PUSCH for RACH-less handover, SDT-CG, PUSCH scheduled by RAR UL grant corresponding to CFRA are out of scope of Rel-19 OCC for PUSCH.
Proposal 9: 
Study whether the indication of OCC related parameters, e.g., OCC length, OCC index, is performed in a semi-static manner or in a dynamic manner.
Proposal 10: 
If OCC related parameters are indicated in a dynamic manner, DCI format 0_0 is assumed as the container.

3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #120bis					        R1- 2502817
Wuhan, China, April 7th – 11th, 2025
Agenda Item:	9.11.3
Source: 	LG Electronics
Title: 	Discussion on NR-NTN uplink capacity/throughput enhancement
Document for:	Discussion and decision

Conclusions
In this contribution, we discussed UL capacity/throughput enhancement by using OCC in Rel-19 NR NTN and the following proposal(s) are made:

Proposal #1: RAN1 support the following UCI multiplexing rules, if PUSCH repetitions in an OCC group overlap with a single PUCCH without repetition,
Case 1: When PUCCH and PUSCH have the same priority,
UCI can be multiplexed on all PUSCH repetitions within the OCC group that overlaps with PUCCH without repetition
Case 2: When PUCCH has higher priority than PUSCH,
If UCI-MuxWithDifferentPriority is configured,
If PUCCH carries positive SR
PUSCH repetitions in the OCC group are dropped
Otherwise
UCI can be multiplexed on all PUSCH repetitions within the OCC group that overlaps with PUCCH without repetition
Otherwise
PUSCH repetitions in the OCC group are dropped
Case 3: When PUCCH has lower priority than PUSCH,
If UCI-MuxWithDifferentPriority is configured,
UCI other than HARQ-ACK are dropped before multiplexing
HARQ-ACK can be multiplexed on all PUSCH repetitions within the OCC group that overlaps with PUCCH without repetition
Otherwise
PUCCH is dropped
Note 1: For the above cases, UCI can be multiplexed when the timeline conditions are met.
Note 2: For the timeline, the first symbol of the earliest PUSCH with the same OCC sequence as the overlapping PUSCH is considered.
Proposal #2: RAN1 consider separating the beta offset parameter(s) between PUSCH without OCC and PUSCH with OCC.
Proposal #3: RAN1 support the following UCI multiplexing rules, if PUSCH repetitions in an OCC group overlap with more than one PUCCH without repetition,
Option 1: Up to network implementation (e.g., UE does not expect the case)
Option 2: PUSCH repetitions in the OCC group are dropped
Proposal #4: RAN1 support the following UCI multiplexing rules, if PUSCH repetitions in an OCC group overlap with PUCCH with repetition,
PUSCH repetitions in the OCC group are dropped
Proposal #5: RAN1 support OCC indication/configuration as follows:
For Type 1 CG PUSCH,
OCC index and OCC length are configured by RRC signaling.
For Type 2 CG PUSCH and DG PUSCH
OCC index is implicitly indicated by DM-RS port
OCC length is indicated by DCI among OCC length candidates configured in TDRA list
Proposal #6: RAN1 consider the followings to align OCC groups between UEs.
Signaling of offset to determine OCC start
Proposal #7: RAN1 consider OCC randomization to mitigate UL interference among cell(s) and/or satellite beam(s).
Proposal #8: RAN1 consider TBoMS transmission based on OCC group.

3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #120bis	R1-2502856
Wuhan, China, April 07th – 11th, 2025

Agenda item:	9.11.3
Source: 	Qualcomm Incorporated
Title: 	NR-NTN uplink capacity/throughput enhancement
Document for:	Discussion and Decision

Conclusion
OCC with Msg3 PUSCH is not in scope of Release 19 NR NTN Ph3.

Agreement
For RV cycling for OCC with DG-PUSCH, support Option 1 
Option 1: RV cycling is used across OCC groups.
Note: when option 1 is applied, RV cycling is applied when the number of repetitions is greater than the OCC length
No optimization in Rel-19 for pairing UEs with OCC2 and UEs with OCC4.

In this contribution, we present our views on remaining issues for NR NTN uplink capacity enhancements.
Specification aspects
2.1 Bandwidth limitation
In RAN1#116b, it was discussed whether to limit the number of allocated PRBs when using OCC, which resulted in the following FFS (highlighted):

Although there seemed to be consensus among companies that using OCC with large PRB allocation does not provide any gain, it was argued that this should be a scheduling decision at the gNB and not specified. We disagree with this statement.
OCC for PUSCH is a new feature introduced quite late in the lifecycle of NR. Since Rel-15, the hardware and processing in products have been optimized to accommodate increasing data rates while keeping low area and power consumption. The addition of OCC to the encoding chain of PUSCH is a non-trivial modification (from implementation point of view). Performing OCC “at the envelope” (i.e., without limiting the number of PRBs, modulation order, etc.) would necessitate overdimensioning the UE hardware and processing to accommodate spreading + OCC with very large allocations, or running the hardware at higher clock rates (resulting in increased power consumption) to meet the timeline requirements. In the absence of specification limitations, the UE will need to be more complex and/or increase its power consumption to accommodate cases for which there is no capacity benefit. 
For more than 1 PRB allocation, the same multiplexing capability can be realized by first reducing the PRB allocation down to 1 PRB, and then applying OCC within the 1 PRB (e.g. applying OCC-4 for 2 PRBs would be equivalent to applying OCC-2 to two different allocations of 1 PRB). Therefore, we make the following proposal.
Proposal 1: OCC schemes can only be applied when the number of allocated PRBs is 1.
2.2 TBoMS
One FFS from the previous meeting is whether OCC should be supported with TBoMS. In our view, and similar to the case of PUSCH with type A repetition, PUSCH with TBoMS and repetitions should also be supported. Therefore, we make the following proposal:
Proposal 2: OCC is supported for TBoMS at least for the case of repetitions

2.3 Signaling and DCI design
For DG-PUSCH, the enablement of OCC should adhere to the standard procedures in NR: the feature is enabled by RRC, and subsequently the DCI may indicate which codeword is to be used by the UE. Note that dynamic signaling of the codeword is desirable to allow dynamic pairing of UEs based on e.g. data arrival, power imbalance, etc.
Proposal 3: For DG-PUSCH:
The OCC feature is enabled/disabled by RRC.
FFS: Details (e.g. parameters to be configured)
The OCC codeword and OCC factor are indicated dynamically in DCI.
FFS: Details (e.g. whether explicit or implicit)
For any OCC scheme to work, the UE needs to be notified about the following OCC parameters:
The OCC factor (M) – maybe semi-statically configured using RRC or dynamically configured using DCI.
The OCC codeword (CW) – For each OCC factor, there are M possible codewords. The UE needs to be informed in the DCI about what codeword to use for a given OCC factor.
Four bits are allocated in DCI for scheduling UL PUSCH for antenna ports e.g., in DCI format 0_1 (38.212). These bits were introduced to support MU-MIMO capabilities, however since NTN UL is expected to operate with 1 Tx/Rx, these bits may be reused to indicate an OCC factor and an OCC codeword. For example, to support OCC of up to 4 UEs (including no OCC), we would need 1 (no OCC) + 2 (OCC 2 + 2 CW) + 4 (OCC4 + 4 CW) entries to indicate OCC configuration. This translates to 3 bits and the UL PUSCH antenna port filed may be repurposed for OCC accordingly. This will result in some changes made to the tables in Section 7.3.1.1 of 38.212. For example, the joint encoding of DMRS port, OCC factor and CW index may be jointly encoded as follows:
Table 3: Example of mapping of DMRS ports to OCC parameters in DCI
Note that value 6 corresponds to no OCC (OCC factor of 1). This is one of the ways to indicate OCC configurations.
Proposal 4: The indication of DMRS port, OCC factor and OCC CW index are jointly encoded in DCI. 

An OCC enable/disable flag may be needed to indicate to a UE whether it should apply OCC or not, and to differentiate UEs doing and not doing OCC, which in the above example is jointly encoded in the table with other parameters. Other limitations may be imposed to keep maximum flexibility of PUSCH scheduled with and without OCC, while simultaneously minimizing the overhead. For instance, following the reasoning in Section 4.1, we expect OCC to be used in allocations with small bandwidth. Additionally, we expect OCC to be supported with low MCS (coverage limited) scenarios and OCC is expected to perform better when TBoMS is enabled. Instead of using a separate flag for OCC, the NW and UE may derive this flag from several conditions indicated in the DCI. For example, if the transmission bandwidth is 1 PRB (based on FDRA field), the modulation of MCS is no higher than QPSK (based on MCS field), the slots used for TBoMS are greater than or equal to M (based on TDRA field) and the UL-SCH flag is set to 1, the UE and network can implicitly derive from these conditions that uplink communications with OCC are enabled. If these conditions are not satisfied, the UE and network can implicitly assume that the scheduled transmission is not using OCC, and the DCI may be interpreted according to the legacy rules. This implicit indication may help in reducing overhead in DCI for configuring OCC. Note that the bandwidth limitation mentioned in Section 3.1 about OCC being limited to 1 PRB has an advantage in this context as well i.e., implicitly indicating OCC in DCI (without increasing DCI overhead).
Proposal 5: Network may enable/disable OCC implicitly based on values of certain fields that meet certain conditions, e.g. OCC is only applied if the following conditions are met:
FDRA = 1 PRB.
Modulation order 
UL-SCH flag = 1

2.4 UCI multiplexing
In previous meetings, the issue of how / whether to support UCI multiplexing on PUSCH with OCC was discussed. In our view, it is essential to support UCI multiplexing on PUSCH. Otherwise, use cases like voice would need to operate without HARQ, as dropping the PUCCH or PUSCH could lead to additional losses.
For the case of slot-level, in order to maintain orthogonality after UCI multiplexing, we would need to map the same UCI to consecutive slots (otherwise the OCC property would be broken and the system would suffer from increased interference). 
Proposal 6: On UCI multiplexing, support the following option:
Option 3-a: UCI is multiplexed on all PUSCH repetitions within an OCC group with inter-slot OCC
Similar to the case of slot aggregation, we propose to multiplex UCI on PUSCH for the case where the PUCCH overlaps with the first slot in the overall set of repetitions. 
Proposal 7: UCI is multiplexed in PUSCH with OCC at least when the PUCCH overlaps with the first slot in the first OCC group of PUSCH transmissions. 
FFS: Other cases
2.5 PT-RS
The specification impact of OCC on PT-RS has been overlooked in the previous meetings. Although typically used in FR2, RAN1 specifications allow usage of PT-RS regardless of the frequency range and, therefore, may be enabled in FR1 NTN. We believe that RAN1 should not specify the joint operation of PT-RS and OCC due to the following reasons:
Technically, TRS is designed for channels in which the phase changes symbol by symbol, requiring estimation of this phase variation. If the channel phase changes very rapidly across symbols, inter-slot OCC will suffer from loss of orthogonality and, therefore, should not be enabled.
From specification and implementation complexity point of view, enabling PT-RS (while keeping orthogonality across UEs using OCC) would be challenging, with RAN1 needing to discuss aspects such as whether PT-RS is OCC’d across slots.
Therefore, we make the following proposal:
Proposal 8: If the UE is scheduled to transmit PUSCH with OCC, PT-RS is not present in the PUSCH.
2.6 Phase coherence
One remaining issue is how to define the phase coherence requirement across PUSCH in the same OCC group. Given that the common understanding was that for PUSCH with OCC we would not introduce new RF requirements, we propose to reuse the mechanism and requirements introduced under DMRS bundling.
Proposal 9: For phase coherence in PUSCH with OCC, reuse the DMRS bundling framework:
The UE declares the maximum TDW length during which it can keep coherent transmission.
The network may configure a TDW duration that is a multiple of the OCC group duration.
No new RF requirements are introduced.
FFS: Whether there is a new capability for the TDW length or the DMRS bundling capability is reused

OCC Codeword (CW) Hopping
In all the simulations done throughout the work item,it has been assumed that UEs used a fixed OCC CW during transmissions. In cases where there are significant CFO differentials between the UEs doing OCC, using a fixed CW throughout the whole OCC transmission may be detrimental. 
For the sake of illustration, let’s consider the extreme case of 4 UEs are using OCC and 2 of the UEs have such CFO differentials which convert CW of one UE to the CW of another UE – maximum interference case. If these 2 UEs fix their CWs for their whole transmission, both UEs will become undecodable at the receiver. However, if we change the CWs amongst the 4 UEs during transmission, this interference (confusion of one CW into another) will be randomized. If there are enough repetitions i.e., we change the OCC CW of each UE enough times during the whole transmission, this interference will average out. This averaging out of interference will result in performance gain. This can be observed in Fig. 1 below, where comparison between no OCC hopping and OCC hopping for 4 UEs OCC is shown for VoIP (TBS = 184) for different number of repetitions (slots).

Fig.1 Performance comparison of no OCC CW hopping vs OCC CW hopping for 4 UEs with VoIP for different number of repetitions (slots)
It can be observed from the figure that at low SNRs (more repetitions), OCC CW hopping helps with error flooring as compared to no hopping. Reducing this error flooring may be especially helpful in cases where low BLER is required. It should be noted that OCC CW hopping will not have any performance impact for OCC 2 (the two CWs can be considered somewhat anti-podal with or without hopping so there is no interference randomization). 
Proposal 10: OCC CW hopping is supported for OCC 4.

Summary
In this contribution we presented our views on uplink capacity enhancements for NR NTN. We made the following observations and proposals:
Proposal 1: OCC schemes can only be applied when the number of allocated PRBs is 1.

Proposal 2: OCC is supported for TBoMS at least for the case of repetitions

Proposal 3: For DG-PUSCH:
The OCC feature is enabled/disabled by RRC.
FFS: Details (e.g. parameters to be configured)
The OCC codeword and OCC factor are indicated dynamically in DCI.
FFS: Details (e.g. whether explicit or implicit)

Proposal 4: The indication of DMRS port, OCC factor and OCC CW index are jointly encoded in DCI. 

Proposal 5: Network may enable/disable OCC implicitly based on values of certain fields that meet certain conditions, e.g. OCC is only applied if the following conditions are met:
FDRA = 1 PRB.
Modulation order 
UL-SCH flag = 1

Proposal 6: On UCI multiplexing, support the following option:
Option 3-a: UCI is multiplexed on all PUSCH repetitions within an OCC group with inter-slot OCC

Proposal 7: UCI is multiplexed in PUSCH with OCC at least when the PUCCH overlaps with the first slot in the first OCC group of PUSCH transmissions. 
FFS: Other cases

Proposal 8: If the UE is scheduled to transmit PUSCH with OCC, PT-RS is not present in the PUSCH.

Proposal 9: For phase coherence in PUSCH with OCC, reuse the DMRS bundling framework:
The UE declares the maximum TDW length during which it can keep coherent transmission.
The network may configure a TDW duration that is a multiple of the OCC group duration.
No new RF requirements are introduced.
FFS: Whether there is a new capability for the TDW length or the DMRS bundling capability is reused

Proposal 10: OCC CW hopping is supported for OCC 4.

3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #120bis		 R1-2502903
Wuhan, China, April 7th – 11th, 2025
Agenda Item:	9.11.3
Source:	Google
Title:	Discussion on NR-NTN uplink capacity/throughput enhancement 
Document for:	Discussion/Decision

Conclusion
Observation 1: Applying option 2 will break the OCC orthogonality to all transmissions in the same OCC group. In this regard, the feasible solution is to either drop the UCI or multiplex the UCI to the PUSCH repetitions, regardless PUCCH/PUSCH priorities.
Proposal 1: If a UE is able to multiplex a UCI to the first repetition of PUSCH repetitions in the OCC group with inter-slot OCC, the UE multiplexes the UCI to all PUSCH repetitions in the OCC group with inter-slot OCC. Otherwise, the UE drops the UCI.

3GPP TSG-RAN WG1 Meeting #120bis	R1-2502983
Wuhan, China, April 7th–11th, 2025
Agenda Item:	9.11.3
Source:	Moderator (MediaTek)
Title:	Feature lead summary #1 of AI 9.11.3 on NR-NTN uplink capacity and throughput
Document for:	Discussion
0 

Conclusions





8 Appendix A – RAN1 agreements

RAN1#120 agreements

Conclusion
For OCC time synchronization / alignment of multiplexed UEs to maintain orthogonality of the codes used for OCC, OCC group alignment is handled by network scheduling without specification impact.

Conclusion
OCC with Msg3 PUSCH is not in scope of Release 19 NR NTN Ph3.

Agreement
For RV cycling for OCC with DG-PUSCH, support Option 1 
Option 1: RV cycling is used across OCC groups.
Note: when option 1 is applied, RV cycling is applied when the number of repetitions is greater than the OCC length
No optimization in Rel-19 for pairing UEs with OCC2 and UEs with OCC4.

RAN1#119 agreements
Observation:
Option 1 Inter-slot OCC with OCC length 4 to multiplex up to 4 UEs with 2 PRBs can meet VoIP 2% BLER within 1 dB of single UE baseline for 8 slots or larger with UE grouping with similar CFO (e.g. maximum differential CFO of 200 Hz).
 
Observation:
Option 2 Intra-symbol pre-DFT OCC with OCC length 4 to multiplex up to 4 UEs with TBoMS can meet VoIP 2% BLER target within 1 dB of single UE baseline with 2 PRBs and 4 repetitions or larger; and with 1 PRB and 8 repetitions or larger, without need for CFO grouping.  

Agreement
RAN1 to confirm the working assumption of RAN1#118bis with revisions as follows:
Support OCC length 2 with inter-slot OCC to multiplex up to 2 UEs.
Support Option 1: inter-slot OCC with OCC length 4 to multiplex up to 4 UEs using Hadamard sequences
RAN1 does not pursue Option 2: Intra-symbol pre-DFT OCC with OCC length 4 to multiplex up to 4 UEs.
RAN1 does not pursue Option 3: Combination of Inter-slot OCC with OCC length 2 and intra-symbol pre-DFT OCC with OCC length 2 to multiplex up to 4 UEs.
Note 1: there will be separate UE capabilities for OCC length 2 and OCC length 4, where UE capability for OCC length 2 is a prerequisite for UE capability for OCC length 4.
Note 2: gNB can ensure the performance of Option 1 by UE grouping with similar CFO (e.g. maximum differential CFO of 50 or 100 Hz or 200 Hz). Without CFO grouping (e.g. maximum differential CFO of 400 Hz), the performance of option 1 is degraded by at least 1 dB in several cases. For CFO grouping, several companies in RAN1 state that CFO grouping is feasible based on network implementation without any new specification impact.
RAN1 assumes no specification impact for CFO grouping
RAN1 does not pursue closed-loop frequency adjustment commands.
RAN1 assumes that RAN4 does not define new UE requirements for CFO.


Agreement
For RV cycling for OCC with DG-PUSCH, the following are considered:
Option 1: RV cycling is used across OCC groups
Note 1: RV cycling is applied when the number of repetitions is greater than the OCC length
Option 2: Fixed RV is used across OCC groups
Option 3: For OCC length 2, fixed RV is used across two OCC groups, RV cycling is used across groups of two OCC groups



Agreement
If PUCCH without repetition overlaps with inter-slot OCC with any PUSCH repetitions in an OCC group, the following options to be considered: 
Option 1: UCI is dropped
FFS: whether all UCI is dropped
Option 2: UCI is transmitted on PUCCH, and all PUSCH repetitions within the OCC group are dropped.
Option 3: UCI is multiplexed on PUSCH with inter-slot OCC
Option 3-a: UCI is multiplexed on all PUSCH repetitions within an OCC group with inter-slot OCC
FFS: which OCC group
Option 3-b: UCI is multiplexed on PUSCH and OCC is not applied within the OCC group
Option 3-c: UCI is multiplexed on PUSCH and OCC is not applied within the PUSCH repetitions
Note: combination of the above can be considered
FFS Details timeline of PUCCH and PUSCH
FFS: handling of PUCCH with repetition
FFS: handling of different UCI types

RAN1#118bis agreements
Working assumption
For the normative phase, 
Support OCC length 2 with inter-slot OCC to multiplex up to 2 UEs.
Support OCC length 4 with one of the following OCC techniques
Option 1: Inter-slot with OCC length 4 to multiplex up to 4 UEs.
Option 2: Intra-symbol pre-DFT OCC with OCC length 4 to multiplex up to 4 UEs.
Option 3: Combination of Inter-slot OCC with OCC length 2 and intra-symbol pre-DFT OCC with OCC length 2 to multiplex up to 4 UEs.
Note 1:
At least consider 8 slots, 16 slots, and 20 slots for VoIP with BLER 2% target, with 1 RB, 2 RBs when comparing Option 1, Option 2, and Option 3. Companies can additionally report on 4 slots at least for 2 RBs.
Option 2 assumes TBoMS, FFS Option 3 assumes TBoMS
Note 2: as part of the working assumption, it is assumed that there would be separate UE capabilities for OCC length 2 and OCC length 4, where UE capability for OCC length 2 is a prerequisite for UE capability for OCC length 4.

Conclusion
For TBS calculation and rate matching for OCC with PUSCH, for inter-slot OCC in the working assumption of RAN1#118bis:
for inter-slot OCC for OCC length 2 and for inter-slot OCC for OCC length 4 in option 1 in the working assumption of RAN1#118bis
No change in determination of TBS 
No change for rate matching

Agreement
For RV cycling for OCC with PUSCH
For inter-slot OCC for OCC length 2 and for inter-slot OCC for OCC length 4 in option 1 in the working assumption of RAN1#118bis 
Same RV value is used in one OCC group (i.e., OCC length applied to N slots).
FFS: RV cycling can be additionally used across OCC groups

Agreement
For OCC sequence for OCC with PUSCH: 
For OCC length 2, re-use orthogonal sequence [1 1; 1 -1] 

RAN1#118 agreements
Agreement
At least one of the OCC techniques when PUSCH repetitions are used will be specified:
Inter-slot time-domain OCC with OCC length 2
Inter-slot time-domain OCC with OCC length 2 and 4
Intra-symbol pre-DFT-s OCC (comb-like structure as in PUCCH format 4) with OCC length 2
Intra-symbol pre-DFT-s OCC (comb-like structure as in PUCCH format 4) with OCC length 2 and 4
Note: combination of techniques is not precluded
PUSCH repetition Type B is not considered

Conclusion
Multiplexing of 8 UEs with PUSCH OCC is not discussed in RAN1 until the work for multiplexing of less than 8 UEs has been completed.

RAN1#117 agreements
Agreement
For the normative phase, at least one of the OCC techniques will be specified:
Inter-slot time-domain OCC with PUSCH repetition Type A with OCC length 2 or 4
Inter-symbol(s) time domain OCC with OCC length 2 or 4
Intra-symbol pre-DFT-s OCC (comb-like structure as in PUCCH format 4) with OCC length 2 or 4
FFS Combination of OCC techniques including multiplexing of 8 UEs
FFS Use of OCC techniques with TBoMS
FFS Backward compatibility with non-Rel-19 UEs

Conclusion
OCC with PUSCH can support at least multiplexing of 2 or 4 UEs and achieve up to 2 or 4 times capacity gains respectively, when repetitions are used.
Note: the actual gain may be less due to e.g. intra/inter cell interference.

RAN1#116bis agreements
Agreement
Support OCC for PUSCH in Rel-19 NR NTN:
At least PUSCH with Type A repetition
FFS PUSCH without Type A repetition for intra-symbol and/or inter-symbol cases
At least code length 2 or 4, FFS code length 8 
FFS: number of RBs
Potential OCC techniques listed below are for further down-selection:
Inter-slot time-domain OCC with PUSCH repetition Type A 
Inter-symbol(s) time domain OCC 
Intra-symbol pre-DFT-s OCC (comb-like structure as in PUCCH format 4)
Combinations of OCC techniques
TBoMS for OCC techniques is FFS

Agreement
RAN1 to at least further study the potential specification aspects on OCC techniques:
TBS calculation / Rate matching
UCI multiplexing
RV cycling across repetitions
Frequency hopping, e.g. intra /inter slot
OCC indication/configuration
Power control
FFS others aspects


RAN1#116 agreements
Agreement
Adopt the table below for assumptions for Evaluation parameters for link level evaluation in NR NTN UL capacity and throughput enhancements



Agreement
-

Agreement
Adopt the table below for assumptions for KPIs for link level evaluation in NR NTN UL capacity and throughput enhancements





8 Appendix B – Simulation results

Ericsson R1-2501730 
Frequency hopping

Figure 1: LDR/ VoIP PUSCH BLER performance with/without inter-OCC group frequency hopping on NTN-TDL-A. Left: LDR. Right: VOIP.

Figure 2: LDR/VoIP PUSCH BLER performance with/without inter-OCC group frequency hopping on NTN-TDL-C. Left: LDR. Right: VOIP.

RV cycling

Figure 3: LDR PUSCH BLER performance with/without inter-OCC group RV cycling. Left: 2 UEs. Right: 4 UEs.


Figure 4: VoIP PUSCH BLER performance with/without inter-OCC group RV cycling. Left: 2 UEs. Right: 4 UEs.

UCI on PUSCH 

Figure 5: LDR PUSCH BLER performance with UCI multiplexing. Left: 8 repetitions. Right: 16 repetitions.



Figure 6: VoIP PUSCH BLER performance with UCI multiplexing. Left: 8 repetitions. Right: 16 repetitions.

DoCoMo R1-2502781

Combination with TBoMS:


Fig 4. Performance of inter-slot OCC 2 in case of TBoMS and repetition without TBoMS 

Fig 5. Performance of inter-slot OCC 4 in case of TBoMS and repetition without TBoMS


Qualcomm 2502856

OCC CW hopping:


Fig.1 Performance comparison of no OCC CW hopping vs OCC CW hopping for 4 UEs with VoIP for different number of repetitions (slots)

9 

3GPP TSG-RAN WG1 Meeting #120bis	R1-2502984
Wuhan, China, April 7th–11th, 2025
Agenda Item:	9.11.3
Source:	Moderator (MediaTek)
Title:	Feature lead summary #2 of AI 9.11.3 on NR-NTN uplink capacity and throughput
Document for:	Discussion
0 

Conclusions





8 Appendix A – RAN1 agreements

RAN1#120 agreements

Conclusion
For OCC time synchronization / alignment of multiplexed UEs to maintain orthogonality of the codes used for OCC, OCC group alignment is handled by network scheduling without specification impact.

Conclusion
OCC with Msg3 PUSCH is not in scope of Release 19 NR NTN Ph3.

Agreement
For RV cycling for OCC with DG-PUSCH, support Option 1 
Option 1: RV cycling is used across OCC groups.
Note: when option 1 is applied, RV cycling is applied when the number of repetitions is greater than the OCC length
No optimization in Rel-19 for pairing UEs with OCC2 and UEs with OCC4.

RAN1#119 agreements
Observation:
Option 1 Inter-slot OCC with OCC length 4 to multiplex up to 4 UEs with 2 PRBs can meet VoIP 2% BLER within 1 dB of single UE baseline for 8 slots or larger with UE grouping with similar CFO (e.g. maximum differential CFO of 200 Hz).
 
Observation:
Option 2 Intra-symbol pre-DFT OCC with OCC length 4 to multiplex up to 4 UEs with TBoMS can meet VoIP 2% BLER target within 1 dB of single UE baseline with 2 PRBs and 4 repetitions or larger; and with 1 PRB and 8 repetitions or larger, without need for CFO grouping.  

Agreement
RAN1 to confirm the working assumption of RAN1#118bis with revisions as follows:
Support OCC length 2 with inter-slot OCC to multiplex up to 2 UEs.
Support Option 1: inter-slot OCC with OCC length 4 to multiplex up to 4 UEs using Hadamard sequences
RAN1 does not pursue Option 2: Intra-symbol pre-DFT OCC with OCC length 4 to multiplex up to 4 UEs.
RAN1 does not pursue Option 3: Combination of Inter-slot OCC with OCC length 2 and intra-symbol pre-DFT OCC with OCC length 2 to multiplex up to 4 UEs.
Note 1: there will be separate UE capabilities for OCC length 2 and OCC length 4, where UE capability for OCC length 2 is a prerequisite for UE capability for OCC length 4.
Note 2: gNB can ensure the performance of Option 1 by UE grouping with similar CFO (e.g. maximum differential CFO of 50 or 100 Hz or 200 Hz). Without CFO grouping (e.g. maximum differential CFO of 400 Hz), the performance of option 1 is degraded by at least 1 dB in several cases. For CFO grouping, several companies in RAN1 state that CFO grouping is feasible based on network implementation without any new specification impact.
RAN1 assumes no specification impact for CFO grouping
RAN1 does not pursue closed-loop frequency adjustment commands.
RAN1 assumes that RAN4 does not define new UE requirements for CFO.


Agreement
For RV cycling for OCC with DG-PUSCH, the following are considered:
Option 1: RV cycling is used across OCC groups
Note 1: RV cycling is applied when the number of repetitions is greater than the OCC length
Option 2: Fixed RV is used across OCC groups
Option 3: For OCC length 2, fixed RV is used across two OCC groups, RV cycling is used across groups of two OCC groups



Agreement
If PUCCH without repetition overlaps with inter-slot OCC with any PUSCH repetitions in an OCC group, the following options to be considered: 
Option 1: UCI is dropped
FFS: whether all UCI is dropped
Option 2: UCI is transmitted on PUCCH, and all PUSCH repetitions within the OCC group are dropped.
Option 3: UCI is multiplexed on PUSCH with inter-slot OCC
Option 3-a: UCI is multiplexed on all PUSCH repetitions within an OCC group with inter-slot OCC
FFS: which OCC group
Option 3-b: UCI is multiplexed on PUSCH and OCC is not applied within the OCC group
Option 3-c: UCI is multiplexed on PUSCH and OCC is not applied within the PUSCH repetitions
Note: combination of the above can be considered
FFS Details timeline of PUCCH and PUSCH
FFS: handling of PUCCH with repetition
FFS: handling of different UCI types

RAN1#118bis agreements
Working assumption
For the normative phase, 
Support OCC length 2 with inter-slot OCC to multiplex up to 2 UEs.
Support OCC length 4 with one of the following OCC techniques
Option 1: Inter-slot with OCC length 4 to multiplex up to 4 UEs.
Option 2: Intra-symbol pre-DFT OCC with OCC length 4 to multiplex up to 4 UEs.
Option 3: Combination of Inter-slot OCC with OCC length 2 and intra-symbol pre-DFT OCC with OCC length 2 to multiplex up to 4 UEs.
Note 1:
At least consider 8 slots, 16 slots, and 20 slots for VoIP with BLER 2% target, with 1 RB, 2 RBs when comparing Option 1, Option 2, and Option 3. Companies can additionally report on 4 slots at least for 2 RBs.
Option 2 assumes TBoMS, FFS Option 3 assumes TBoMS
Note 2: as part of the working assumption, it is assumed that there would be separate UE capabilities for OCC length 2 and OCC length 4, where UE capability for OCC length 2 is a prerequisite for UE capability for OCC length 4.

Conclusion
For TBS calculation and rate matching for OCC with PUSCH, for inter-slot OCC in the working assumption of RAN1#118bis:
for inter-slot OCC for OCC length 2 and for inter-slot OCC for OCC length 4 in option 1 in the working assumption of RAN1#118bis
No change in determination of TBS 
No change for rate matching

Agreement
For RV cycling for OCC with PUSCH
For inter-slot OCC for OCC length 2 and for inter-slot OCC for OCC length 4 in option 1 in the working assumption of RAN1#118bis 
Same RV value is used in one OCC group (i.e., OCC length applied to N slots).
FFS: RV cycling can be additionally used across OCC groups

Agreement
For OCC sequence for OCC with PUSCH: 
For OCC length 2, re-use orthogonal sequence [1 1; 1 -1] 

RAN1#118 agreements
Agreement
At least one of the OCC techniques when PUSCH repetitions are used will be specified:
Inter-slot time-domain OCC with OCC length 2
Inter-slot time-domain OCC with OCC length 2 and 4
Intra-symbol pre-DFT-s OCC (comb-like structure as in PUCCH format 4) with OCC length 2
Intra-symbol pre-DFT-s OCC (comb-like structure as in PUCCH format 4) with OCC length 2 and 4
Note: combination of techniques is not precluded
PUSCH repetition Type B is not considered

Conclusion
Multiplexing of 8 UEs with PUSCH OCC is not discussed in RAN1 until the work for multiplexing of less than 8 UEs has been completed.

RAN1#117 agreements
Agreement
For the normative phase, at least one of the OCC techniques will be specified:
Inter-slot time-domain OCC with PUSCH repetition Type A with OCC length 2 or 4
Inter-symbol(s) time domain OCC with OCC length 2 or 4
Intra-symbol pre-DFT-s OCC (comb-like structure as in PUCCH format 4) with OCC length 2 or 4
FFS Combination of OCC techniques including multiplexing of 8 UEs
FFS Use of OCC techniques with TBoMS
FFS Backward compatibility with non-Rel-19 UEs

Conclusion
OCC with PUSCH can support at least multiplexing of 2 or 4 UEs and achieve up to 2 or 4 times capacity gains respectively, when repetitions are used.
Note: the actual gain may be less due to e.g. intra/inter cell interference.

RAN1#116bis agreements
Agreement
Support OCC for PUSCH in Rel-19 NR NTN:
At least PUSCH with Type A repetition
FFS PUSCH without Type A repetition for intra-symbol and/or inter-symbol cases
At least code length 2 or 4, FFS code length 8 
FFS: number of RBs
Potential OCC techniques listed below are for further down-selection:
Inter-slot time-domain OCC with PUSCH repetition Type A 
Inter-symbol(s) time domain OCC 
Intra-symbol pre-DFT-s OCC (comb-like structure as in PUCCH format 4)
Combinations of OCC techniques
TBoMS for OCC techniques is FFS

Agreement
RAN1 to at least further study the potential specification aspects on OCC techniques:
TBS calculation / Rate matching
UCI multiplexing
RV cycling across repetitions
Frequency hopping, e.g. intra /inter slot
OCC indication/configuration
Power control
FFS others aspects


RAN1#116 agreements
Agreement
Adopt the table below for assumptions for Evaluation parameters for link level evaluation in NR NTN UL capacity and throughput enhancements



Agreement
-

Agreement
Adopt the table below for assumptions for KPIs for link level evaluation in NR NTN UL capacity and throughput enhancements





8 Appendix B – Simulation results

Ericsson R1-2501730 
Frequency hopping

Figure 1: LDR/ VoIP PUSCH BLER performance with/without inter-OCC group frequency hopping on NTN-TDL-A. Left: LDR. Right: VOIP.

Figure 2: LDR/VoIP PUSCH BLER performance with/without inter-OCC group frequency hopping on NTN-TDL-C. Left: LDR. Right: VOIP.

RV cycling

Figure 3: LDR PUSCH BLER performance with/without inter-OCC group RV cycling. Left: 2 UEs. Right: 4 UEs.


Figure 4: VoIP PUSCH BLER performance with/without inter-OCC group RV cycling. Left: 2 UEs. Right: 4 UEs.

UCI on PUSCH 

Figure 5: LDR PUSCH BLER performance with UCI multiplexing. Left: 8 repetitions. Right: 16 repetitions.



Figure 6: VoIP PUSCH BLER performance with UCI multiplexing. Left: 8 repetitions. Right: 16 repetitions.

DoCoMo R1-2502781

Combination with TBoMS:


Fig 4. Performance of inter-slot OCC 2 in case of TBoMS and repetition without TBoMS 

Fig 5. Performance of inter-slot OCC 4 in case of TBoMS and repetition without TBoMS


Qualcomm 2502856

OCC CW hopping:


Fig.1 Performance comparison of no OCC CW hopping vs OCC CW hopping for 4 UEs with VoIP for different number of repetitions (slots)

9 

3GPP TSG-RAN WG1 Meeting #120bis	R1-2502985
Wuhan, China, April 7th–11th, 2025
Agenda Item:	9.11.3
Source:	Moderator (MediaTek)
Title:	Feature lead summary #3 of AI 9.11.3 on NR-NTN uplink capacity and throughput
Document for:	Discussion
0 

Conclusions





8 Appendix A – RAN1 agreements

RAN1#120 agreements

Conclusion
For OCC time synchronization / alignment of multiplexed UEs to maintain orthogonality of the codes used for OCC, OCC group alignment is handled by network scheduling without specification impact.

Conclusion
OCC with Msg3 PUSCH is not in scope of Release 19 NR NTN Ph3.

Agreement
For RV cycling for OCC with DG-PUSCH, support Option 1 
Option 1: RV cycling is used across OCC groups.
Note: when option 1 is applied, RV cycling is applied when the number of repetitions is greater than the OCC length
No optimization in Rel-19 for pairing UEs with OCC2 and UEs with OCC4.

RAN1#119 agreements
Observation:
Option 1 Inter-slot OCC with OCC length 4 to multiplex up to 4 UEs with 2 PRBs can meet VoIP 2% BLER within 1 dB of single UE baseline for 8 slots or larger with UE grouping with similar CFO (e.g. maximum differential CFO of 200 Hz).
 
Observation:
Option 2 Intra-symbol pre-DFT OCC with OCC length 4 to multiplex up to 4 UEs with TBoMS can meet VoIP 2% BLER target within 1 dB of single UE baseline with 2 PRBs and 4 repetitions or larger; and with 1 PRB and 8 repetitions or larger, without need for CFO grouping.  

Agreement
RAN1 to confirm the working assumption of RAN1#118bis with revisions as follows:
Support OCC length 2 with inter-slot OCC to multiplex up to 2 UEs.
Support Option 1: inter-slot OCC with OCC length 4 to multiplex up to 4 UEs using Hadamard sequences
RAN1 does not pursue Option 2: Intra-symbol pre-DFT OCC with OCC length 4 to multiplex up to 4 UEs.
RAN1 does not pursue Option 3: Combination of Inter-slot OCC with OCC length 2 and intra-symbol pre-DFT OCC with OCC length 2 to multiplex up to 4 UEs.
Note 1: there will be separate UE capabilities for OCC length 2 and OCC length 4, where UE capability for OCC length 2 is a prerequisite for UE capability for OCC length 4.
Note 2: gNB can ensure the performance of Option 1 by UE grouping with similar CFO (e.g. maximum differential CFO of 50 or 100 Hz or 200 Hz). Without CFO grouping (e.g. maximum differential CFO of 400 Hz), the performance of option 1 is degraded by at least 1 dB in several cases. For CFO grouping, several companies in RAN1 state that CFO grouping is feasible based on network implementation without any new specification impact.
RAN1 assumes no specification impact for CFO grouping
RAN1 does not pursue closed-loop frequency adjustment commands.
RAN1 assumes that RAN4 does not define new UE requirements for CFO.


Agreement
For RV cycling for OCC with DG-PUSCH, the following are considered:
Option 1: RV cycling is used across OCC groups
Note 1: RV cycling is applied when the number of repetitions is greater than the OCC length
Option 2: Fixed RV is used across OCC groups
Option 3: For OCC length 2, fixed RV is used across two OCC groups, RV cycling is used across groups of two OCC groups



Agreement
If PUCCH without repetition overlaps with inter-slot OCC with any PUSCH repetitions in an OCC group, the following options to be considered: 
Option 1: UCI is dropped
FFS: whether all UCI is dropped
Option 2: UCI is transmitted on PUCCH, and all PUSCH repetitions within the OCC group are dropped.
Option 3: UCI is multiplexed on PUSCH with inter-slot OCC
Option 3-a: UCI is multiplexed on all PUSCH repetitions within an OCC group with inter-slot OCC
FFS: which OCC group
Option 3-b: UCI is multiplexed on PUSCH and OCC is not applied within the OCC group
Option 3-c: UCI is multiplexed on PUSCH and OCC is not applied within the PUSCH repetitions
Note: combination of the above can be considered
FFS Details timeline of PUCCH and PUSCH
FFS: handling of PUCCH with repetition
FFS: handling of different UCI types

RAN1#118bis agreements
Working assumption
For the normative phase, 
Support OCC length 2 with inter-slot OCC to multiplex up to 2 UEs.
Support OCC length 4 with one of the following OCC techniques
Option 1: Inter-slot with OCC length 4 to multiplex up to 4 UEs.
Option 2: Intra-symbol pre-DFT OCC with OCC length 4 to multiplex up to 4 UEs.
Option 3: Combination of Inter-slot OCC with OCC length 2 and intra-symbol pre-DFT OCC with OCC length 2 to multiplex up to 4 UEs.
Note 1:
At least consider 8 slots, 16 slots, and 20 slots for VoIP with BLER 2% target, with 1 RB, 2 RBs when comparing Option 1, Option 2, and Option 3. Companies can additionally report on 4 slots at least for 2 RBs.
Option 2 assumes TBoMS, FFS Option 3 assumes TBoMS
Note 2: as part of the working assumption, it is assumed that there would be separate UE capabilities for OCC length 2 and OCC length 4, where UE capability for OCC length 2 is a prerequisite for UE capability for OCC length 4.

Conclusion
For TBS calculation and rate matching for OCC with PUSCH, for inter-slot OCC in the working assumption of RAN1#118bis:
for inter-slot OCC for OCC length 2 and for inter-slot OCC for OCC length 4 in option 1 in the working assumption of RAN1#118bis
No change in determination of TBS 
No change for rate matching

Agreement
For RV cycling for OCC with PUSCH
For inter-slot OCC for OCC length 2 and for inter-slot OCC for OCC length 4 in option 1 in the working assumption of RAN1#118bis 
Same RV value is used in one OCC group (i.e., OCC length applied to N slots).
FFS: RV cycling can be additionally used across OCC groups

Agreement
For OCC sequence for OCC with PUSCH: 
For OCC length 2, re-use orthogonal sequence [1 1; 1 -1] 

RAN1#118 agreements
Agreement
At least one of the OCC techniques when PUSCH repetitions are used will be specified:
Inter-slot time-domain OCC with OCC length 2
Inter-slot time-domain OCC with OCC length 2 and 4
Intra-symbol pre-DFT-s OCC (comb-like structure as in PUCCH format 4) with OCC length 2
Intra-symbol pre-DFT-s OCC (comb-like structure as in PUCCH format 4) with OCC length 2 and 4
Note: combination of techniques is not precluded
PUSCH repetition Type B is not considered

Conclusion
Multiplexing of 8 UEs with PUSCH OCC is not discussed in RAN1 until the work for multiplexing of less than 8 UEs has been completed.

RAN1#117 agreements
Agreement
For the normative phase, at least one of the OCC techniques will be specified:
Inter-slot time-domain OCC with PUSCH repetition Type A with OCC length 2 or 4
Inter-symbol(s) time domain OCC with OCC length 2 or 4
Intra-symbol pre-DFT-s OCC (comb-like structure as in PUCCH format 4) with OCC length 2 or 4
FFS Combination of OCC techniques including multiplexing of 8 UEs
FFS Use of OCC techniques with TBoMS
FFS Backward compatibility with non-Rel-19 UEs

Conclusion
OCC with PUSCH can support at least multiplexing of 2 or 4 UEs and achieve up to 2 or 4 times capacity gains respectively, when repetitions are used.
Note: the actual gain may be less due to e.g. intra/inter cell interference.

RAN1#116bis agreements
Agreement
Support OCC for PUSCH in Rel-19 NR NTN:
At least PUSCH with Type A repetition
FFS PUSCH without Type A repetition for intra-symbol and/or inter-symbol cases
At least code length 2 or 4, FFS code length 8 
FFS: number of RBs
Potential OCC techniques listed below are for further down-selection:
Inter-slot time-domain OCC with PUSCH repetition Type A 
Inter-symbol(s) time domain OCC 
Intra-symbol pre-DFT-s OCC (comb-like structure as in PUCCH format 4)
Combinations of OCC techniques
TBoMS for OCC techniques is FFS

Agreement
RAN1 to at least further study the potential specification aspects on OCC techniques:
TBS calculation / Rate matching
UCI multiplexing
RV cycling across repetitions
Frequency hopping, e.g. intra /inter slot
OCC indication/configuration
Power control
FFS others aspects


RAN1#116 agreements
Agreement
Adopt the table below for assumptions for Evaluation parameters for link level evaluation in NR NTN UL capacity and throughput enhancements



Agreement
-

Agreement
Adopt the table below for assumptions for KPIs for link level evaluation in NR NTN UL capacity and throughput enhancements





8 Appendix B – Simulation results

Ericsson R1-2501730 
Frequency hopping

Figure 1: LDR/ VoIP PUSCH BLER performance with/without inter-OCC group frequency hopping on NTN-TDL-A. Left: LDR. Right: VOIP.

Figure 2: LDR/VoIP PUSCH BLER performance with/without inter-OCC group frequency hopping on NTN-TDL-C. Left: LDR. Right: VOIP.

RV cycling

Figure 3: LDR PUSCH BLER performance with/without inter-OCC group RV cycling. Left: 2 UEs. Right: 4 UEs.


Figure 4: VoIP PUSCH BLER performance with/without inter-OCC group RV cycling. Left: 2 UEs. Right: 4 UEs.

UCI on PUSCH 

Figure 5: LDR PUSCH BLER performance with UCI multiplexing. Left: 8 repetitions. Right: 16 repetitions.



Figure 6: VoIP PUSCH BLER performance with UCI multiplexing. Left: 8 repetitions. Right: 16 repetitions.

DoCoMo R1-2502781

Combination with TBoMS:


Fig 4. Performance of inter-slot OCC 2 in case of TBoMS and repetition without TBoMS 

Fig 5. Performance of inter-slot OCC 4 in case of TBoMS and repetition without TBoMS


Qualcomm 2502856

OCC CW hopping:


Fig.1 Performance comparison of no OCC CW hopping vs OCC CW hopping for 4 UEs with VoIP for different number of repetitions (slots)

9 

3GPP TSG-RAN WG1 Meeting #120bis	R1-2503094
Wuhan, China, April 7th–11th, 2025
Agenda Item:	9.11.3
Source:	Moderator (MediaTek)
Title:	Feature lead summary #4 of AI 9.11.3 on NR-NTN uplink capacity and throughput
Document for:	Discussion
0 

Conclusions

Phase continuity and power consistency:

Agreement
RAN1 assumes that the UE is required to maintain phase continuity and power consistency for the duration of one OCC group with PUSCH.
FFS: under which conditions the above applies, e.g. under the same conditions that phase continuity applies for DMRS bundling

 
Agreement
Send LS to RAN4 on requirements for the phase continuity and power consistency:
 
RAN1 has agreed the following:
 
RAN1 assumes that the UE is required to maintain phase continuity and power consistency for the duration of one OCC group with PUSCH.
FFS: under which conditions the above applies, e.g. under the same conditions that phase continuity applies for DMRS bundling 
RAN1 ask RAN4 whether the same phase continuity requirements as for DMRS bundling can be applied for OCC length 2 and/or OCC length 4 under the same conditions as for DMRS bundling, or if new requirements are needed.
 
RV Cycling:

Agreement
For OCC with CG-PUSCH, the RV sequence applied across OCC groups is RRC configured among the RV sequences defined for legacy CG PUSCH, i.e., [0,2,3,1], [0,3,0,3] or [0,0,0,0].
Note: no new RRC parameter is needed for the above
FFS: if OCC group dropping is later agreed, how to count RVs may need to be discussed for that case


UCI Multiplexing:


Agreement
For resolving the overlapping PUSCH repetitions with inter-slot OCC and PUCCH with/without repetitions, the legacy timeline conditions for UCI multiplexing or prioritization for dropping PUSCH [/ PUCCH] applies according with the following update:
“the first PUSCH repetition of an OCC group” is used instead of “PUSCH repetition” for the legacy timeline condition, where the legacy PUSCH repetition that overlaps with a PUCCH belongs to the OCC group
Note: how to capture the above agreement is up to the spec editor.

Agreement
If PUCCH without repetitions overlaps with inter-slot OCC with any PUSCH repetitions in an OCC group with a same priority index for PUCCH/PUSCH, the legacy conditions and rules for UCI multiplexing or prioritization for dropping applies with the following updates:
If the UCI is multiplexed on the PUSCH repetition according to legacy rules and the updated timeline conditions for UCI multiplexing are satisfied, UCI is multiplexed on all PUSCH repetitions without A-CSI reports within an OCC group with inter-slot OCC overlaps with the PUCCH. (Option 3-a)
FFS: PUSCH repetition with A-CSI reports
If the PUSCH repetition is dropped according to legacy rules and the updated timeline conditions for PUSCH dropping are satisfied, UCI is transmitted on PUCCH and all PUSCH repetitions within the OCC group that overlaps with the PUCCH are dropped (Option 2)
FFS: if PUCCH is overlap with PUSCH repetition in both time and frequency domain.
UE does not expect there are multiple PUCCHs without repetitions in different PUCCH slots with a same or different UCI types other than SR overlapping with multiple PUSCH repetitions in the same OCC group.
FFS: whether the above applies only when at least one of the overlapping PUCCHs result in a UCI being multiplexed on the PUSCH
Note 1: If the UCI on the PUCCH is dropped according to legacy rules and [updated] timeline conditions for UCI dropping are satisfied, there is no [additional] spec impact. (Option 1)
Note 2: There can be multiple PUCCHs with same or different UCI types in the same slot (i.e. CSI report and HARQ-ACK) as in the legacy specifications
Working assumption 1: The above agreement applies to different priority indexes for PUCCH/PUSCH if no additional specification impact is identified.
Working assumption 2: The above agreement applies to PUCCH with repetitions if no additional specification impact is identified.


OCC Indication / Configuration:

Agreement
OCC length and OCC sequence for OCC with CG PUSCH Type 1 is configured by RRC higher-layers.
Up to RAN2 whether to signal this with one or two RRC parameters.
Note: OCC lengths and sequences to be provided in the table of RRC parameters to be prepared by the WI rapporteur

Agreement
For the OCC length applied for OCC DG PUSCH and CG PUSCH Type 2, consider the following options:
Option 1: Configured by RRC higher-layer parameter.
Note: this does not preclude jointly configuring OCC sequence and OCC length with the same RRC configuration
Option 2: Max value is configured by RRC higher-layer parameter, and the applied value is implicitly determined from the configured repetition number.
Option 3: Candidates values are configured by RRC higher-layer parameter, and the applied value is indicated by scheduling DCI for DG PUSCH or by activation DCI for CG PUSCH Type 2.
Note: this does not preclude jointly configuring OCC sequence and OCC length with the same RRC configuration
Option 4: Single value is indicated by scheduling DCI for DG PUSCH and by activation DCI for CG PUSCH Type 2 (no RRC configuration of candidate values).
Option 5: Max value is configured by RRC higher-layer parameter, and the applied value is indicated by scheduling DCI for DG PUSCH and by activation DCI for CG PUSCH Type 2.
Note: it is not precluded to select a different option for DG PUSCH and CG PUSCH Type 2.
 
 
Agreement
For the OCC sequence applied for OCC DG PUSCH and CG PUSCH Type 2, the sequence is indicated dynamically in DCI
FFS: with a new field or reusing an existing field



8 Appendix A – RAN1 agreements

RAN1#120 agreements

Conclusion
For OCC time synchronization / alignment of multiplexed UEs to maintain orthogonality of the codes used for OCC, OCC group alignment is handled by network scheduling without specification impact.

Conclusion
OCC with Msg3 PUSCH is not in scope of Release 19 NR NTN Ph3.

Agreement
For RV cycling for OCC with DG-PUSCH, support Option 1 
Option 1: RV cycling is used across OCC groups.
Note: when option 1 is applied, RV cycling is applied when the number of repetitions is greater than the OCC length
No optimization in Rel-19 for pairing UEs with OCC2 and UEs with OCC4.

RAN1#119 agreements
Observation:
Option 1 Inter-slot OCC with OCC length 4 to multiplex up to 4 UEs with 2 PRBs can meet VoIP 2% BLER within 1 dB of single UE baseline for 8 slots or larger with UE grouping with similar CFO (e.g. maximum differential CFO of 200 Hz).
 
Observation:
Option 2 Intra-symbol pre-DFT OCC with OCC length 4 to multiplex up to 4 UEs with TBoMS can meet VoIP 2% BLER target within 1 dB of single UE baseline with 2 PRBs and 4 repetitions or larger; and with 1 PRB and 8 repetitions or larger, without need for CFO grouping.  

Agreement
RAN1 to confirm the working assumption of RAN1#118bis with revisions as follows:
Support OCC length 2 with inter-slot OCC to multiplex up to 2 UEs.
Support Option 1: inter-slot OCC with OCC length 4 to multiplex up to 4 UEs using Hadamard sequences
RAN1 does not pursue Option 2: Intra-symbol pre-DFT OCC with OCC length 4 to multiplex up to 4 UEs.
RAN1 does not pursue Option 3: Combination of Inter-slot OCC with OCC length 2 and intra-symbol pre-DFT OCC with OCC length 2 to multiplex up to 4 UEs.
Note 1: there will be separate UE capabilities for OCC length 2 and OCC length 4, where UE capability for OCC length 2 is a prerequisite for UE capability for OCC length 4.
Note 2: gNB can ensure the performance of Option 1 by UE grouping with similar CFO (e.g. maximum differential CFO of 50 or 100 Hz or 200 Hz). Without CFO grouping (e.g. maximum differential CFO of 400 Hz), the performance of option 1 is degraded by at least 1 dB in several cases. For CFO grouping, several companies in RAN1 state that CFO grouping is feasible based on network implementation without any new specification impact.
RAN1 assumes no specification impact for CFO grouping
RAN1 does not pursue closed-loop frequency adjustment commands.
RAN1 assumes that RAN4 does not define new UE requirements for CFO.


Agreement
For RV cycling for OCC with DG-PUSCH, the following are considered:
Option 1: RV cycling is used across OCC groups
Note 1: RV cycling is applied when the number of repetitions is greater than the OCC length
Option 2: Fixed RV is used across OCC groups
Option 3: For OCC length 2, fixed RV is used across two OCC groups, RV cycling is used across groups of two OCC groups



Agreement
If PUCCH without repetition overlaps with inter-slot OCC with any PUSCH repetitions in an OCC group, the following options to be considered: 
Option 1: UCI is dropped
FFS: whether all UCI is dropped
Option 2: UCI is transmitted on PUCCH, and all PUSCH repetitions within the OCC group are dropped.
Option 3: UCI is multiplexed on PUSCH with inter-slot OCC
Option 3-a: UCI is multiplexed on all PUSCH repetitions within an OCC group with inter-slot OCC
FFS: which OCC group
Option 3-b: UCI is multiplexed on PUSCH and OCC is not applied within the OCC group
Option 3-c: UCI is multiplexed on PUSCH and OCC is not applied within the PUSCH repetitions
Note: combination of the above can be considered
FFS Details timeline of PUCCH and PUSCH
FFS: handling of PUCCH with repetition
FFS: handling of different UCI types

RAN1#118bis agreements
Working assumption
For the normative phase, 
Support OCC length 2 with inter-slot OCC to multiplex up to 2 UEs.
Support OCC length 4 with one of the following OCC techniques
Option 1: Inter-slot with OCC length 4 to multiplex up to 4 UEs.
Option 2: Intra-symbol pre-DFT OCC with OCC length 4 to multiplex up to 4 UEs.
Option 3: Combination of Inter-slot OCC with OCC length 2 and intra-symbol pre-DFT OCC with OCC length 2 to multiplex up to 4 UEs.
Note 1:
At least consider 8 slots, 16 slots, and 20 slots for VoIP with BLER 2% target, with 1 RB, 2 RBs when comparing Option 1, Option 2, and Option 3. Companies can additionally report on 4 slots at least for 2 RBs.
Option 2 assumes TBoMS, FFS Option 3 assumes TBoMS
Note 2: as part of the working assumption, it is assumed that there would be separate UE capabilities for OCC length 2 and OCC length 4, where UE capability for OCC length 2 is a prerequisite for UE capability for OCC length 4.

Conclusion
For TBS calculation and rate matching for OCC with PUSCH, for inter-slot OCC in the working assumption of RAN1#118bis:
for inter-slot OCC for OCC length 2 and for inter-slot OCC for OCC length 4 in option 1 in the working assumption of RAN1#118bis
No change in determination of TBS 
No change for rate matching

Agreement
For RV cycling for OCC with PUSCH
For inter-slot OCC for OCC length 2 and for inter-slot OCC for OCC length 4 in option 1 in the working assumption of RAN1#118bis 
Same RV value is used in one OCC group (i.e., OCC length applied to N slots).
FFS: RV cycling can be additionally used across OCC groups

Agreement
For OCC sequence for OCC with PUSCH: 
For OCC length 2, re-use orthogonal sequence [1 1; 1 -1] 

RAN1#118 agreements
Agreement
At least one of the OCC techniques when PUSCH repetitions are used will be specified:
Inter-slot time-domain OCC with OCC length 2
Inter-slot time-domain OCC with OCC length 2 and 4
Intra-symbol pre-DFT-s OCC (comb-like structure as in PUCCH format 4) with OCC length 2
Intra-symbol pre-DFT-s OCC (comb-like structure as in PUCCH format 4) with OCC length 2 and 4
Note: combination of techniques is not precluded
PUSCH repetition Type B is not considered

Conclusion
Multiplexing of 8 UEs with PUSCH OCC is not discussed in RAN1 until the work for multiplexing of less than 8 UEs has been completed.

RAN1#117 agreements
Agreement
For the normative phase, at least one of the OCC techniques will be specified:
Inter-slot time-domain OCC with PUSCH repetition Type A with OCC length 2 or 4
Inter-symbol(s) time domain OCC with OCC length 2 or 4
Intra-symbol pre-DFT-s OCC (comb-like structure as in PUCCH format 4) with OCC length 2 or 4
FFS Combination of OCC techniques including multiplexing of 8 UEs
FFS Use of OCC techniques with TBoMS
FFS Backward compatibility with non-Rel-19 UEs

Conclusion
OCC with PUSCH can support at least multiplexing of 2 or 4 UEs and achieve up to 2 or 4 times capacity gains respectively, when repetitions are used.
Note: the actual gain may be less due to e.g. intra/inter cell interference.

RAN1#116bis agreements
Agreement
Support OCC for PUSCH in Rel-19 NR NTN:
At least PUSCH with Type A repetition
FFS PUSCH without Type A repetition for intra-symbol and/or inter-symbol cases
At least code length 2 or 4, FFS code length 8 
FFS: number of RBs
Potential OCC techniques listed below are for further down-selection:
Inter-slot time-domain OCC with PUSCH repetition Type A 
Inter-symbol(s) time domain OCC 
Intra-symbol pre-DFT-s OCC (comb-like structure as in PUCCH format 4)
Combinations of OCC techniques
TBoMS for OCC techniques is FFS

Agreement
RAN1 to at least further study the potential specification aspects on OCC techniques:
TBS calculation / Rate matching
UCI multiplexing
RV cycling across repetitions
Frequency hopping, e.g. intra /inter slot
OCC indication/configuration
Power control
FFS others aspects


RAN1#116 agreements
Agreement
Adopt the table below for assumptions for Evaluation parameters for link level evaluation in NR NTN UL capacity and throughput enhancements



Agreement
-

Agreement
Adopt the table below for assumptions for KPIs for link level evaluation in NR NTN UL capacity and throughput enhancements





8 Appendix B – Simulation results

Ericsson R1-2501730 
Frequency hopping

Figure 1: LDR/ VoIP PUSCH BLER performance with/without inter-OCC group frequency hopping on NTN-TDL-A. Left: LDR. Right: VOIP.

Figure 2: LDR/VoIP PUSCH BLER performance with/without inter-OCC group frequency hopping on NTN-TDL-C. Left: LDR. Right: VOIP.

RV cycling

Figure 3: LDR PUSCH BLER performance with/without inter-OCC group RV cycling. Left: 2 UEs. Right: 4 UEs.


Figure 4: VoIP PUSCH BLER performance with/without inter-OCC group RV cycling. Left: 2 UEs. Right: 4 UEs.

UCI on PUSCH 

Figure 5: LDR PUSCH BLER performance with UCI multiplexing. Left: 8 repetitions. Right: 16 repetitions.



Figure 6: VoIP PUSCH BLER performance with UCI multiplexing. Left: 8 repetitions. Right: 16 repetitions.

DoCoMo R1-2502781

Combination with TBoMS:


Fig 4. Performance of inter-slot OCC 2 in case of TBoMS and repetition without TBoMS 

Fig 5. Performance of inter-slot OCC 4 in case of TBoMS and repetition without TBoMS


Qualcomm 2502856

OCC CW hopping:


Fig.1 Performance comparison of no OCC CW hopping vs OCC CW hopping for 4 UEs with VoIP for different number of repetitions (slots)

9