DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s RCE filed 4/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16,20,21, and 25 are amended.
Claims 1-15,17-19, and 22-24 are cancelled.
Claim 26 is new.
Claims 16,20,21,25, and 26 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/30/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 16,20,21, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukherjee (US 20160174259) in view of Damnjanovic (US 20160113008) and Cai (US 20100151874).
Re claim 16:
Mukherjee discloses transmitting downlink control information (DCI) from a first transceiver to a second transceiver indicating an allocation grant indicating an allocation for a downlink (DL) transmission (Fig.15 ref. 22 and Fig. 17 ref. 36 and Para.[0010] The PDCCH/EPDCCH is used to carry Downlink Control Information (DCI) such as scheduling decisions and power control commands. More specifically, the DCI includes: [0011] Downlink scheduling assignments and Para.[0011-0013] disclosure parameters and Para.[0085] Resource allocation grants sent using the PDCCH/EPDCCH); and
transmitting a preempt signal with the DCI to indicate (Para.[0071] The grants for such preemptive retransmissions may be sent using a modified Downlink Control Information (DCI) message, or be scrambled by a new Radio Network Temporary Identifier (RNTI), or be configured semi-statically using higher-layer signaling and Para.[0085] The use of this new RNTI indicates that preemptive retransmissions will be used for a particular downlink grant).
wherein the preempt signal has a first logic state for a retransmission of a previous transmission and the DCI indicates a format of the retransmission, and wherein the preempt signal has a second logic state when (Para.[0085] In yet another embodiment, an additional bit field is introduced in the DCI messages applicable for successive subframe scheduling (e.g., DCI formats 0, 1, 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 2, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 4, etc.), the bit field indicates whether the DCI message is valid for a single subframe or for a given number of successive subframes. In a modification, the bit field could indicate the number of successive subframes for which the DCI message is valid for. It is also evident that the indication of whether preemptive retransmissions will be used and the indication of the number of subframes/transmissions if preemptive transmissions will be used may be split into two different bit fields – where the bit indicating successive subframes indicates retransmission and Para.[0010-0011] DCI indicates transport format and Para.[0085] Currently, DCI formats used for PDSCH grants such as formats 1, 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 2, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, etc. contain 2-bit fields to indicate the RV for each transport block and Figure 9), and
As shown above, Mukherjee discloses a bit to indicate if there is a transmission or not. Mukherjee does not explicitly disclose a second logic state when no transceiver is scheduled for a DL transmission and a first logic state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a bit has a first and second logic state, one and zero. Thus, a first/second state will indicate the presence of a transmission and the second/first state will indicate the absence of a transmission.
Mukherjee does not explicitly disclose a preempt signal to indicate whether the allocation for the transmission is preempted.
Damnjanovic discloses a preempt signal to indicate whether the allocation for the transmission is preempted (Para.[0007] The method may include receiving a downlink grant that assigns resources of one or more symbols in a variable length downlink transmission time interval (TTI). The method may also include monitoring the one or more of the symbols for a control signal indicating that a portion of the resources assigned by the downlink grant is to be preempted).
Mukherjee and Damnjanovic are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mukherjee to include preempt the allocation as taught by Damnjanovic in order to dynamically adjust to traffic needs (Damnjanovic Para.[0038]).
Mukherjee does not explicitly disclose wherein the DCI from the first transceiver is all zero when no second transceiver served by the first transceiver is scheduled for a DL transmission.
Cai discloses wherein the DCI from the first transceiver is all zero when no second transceiver served by the first transceiver is scheduled for a DL transmission (Para.[0025] For instance, in at least some embodiments, a resource block assignment field in a DCI formatted message may be set to all zeros. Here, upon receiving and recognizing a DCI formatted message intended for a UA, the UA may determine that the resource block assignment DCI field is set to all zeros thereby indicating that no resources are to be assigned to the UA and therefore that both currently allocated uplink and downlink resources should be released).
Mukherjee and Cai are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mukherjee to include indicating using all zeros in a DCI that no DL transmission is scheduled as taught by Cai in order to optimize resource usage by releasing resources (Cai Para.[0025]).
Re claim 20:
As discussed above, Mukherjee in view of Damnjanovic and Cai meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Mukherjee discloses scheduling the second transceiver for the DL transmission in a dynamic allocation (Para.[0008] Downlink transmissions are dynamically scheduled);
receiving a negative acknowledgement signal for the scheduling from the second transceiver (Para.[0102] the wireless device 18 sends a HARQ ACK/NACK to the base station 12 to indicate whether the wireless device 18 was able to successfully receive and decode the downlink transport block using the initial transmission and the preemptive retransmission(s));
setting the preempt signal to a first logic state (Para.[0085] In yet another embodiment, an additional bit field is introduced in the DCI messages applicable for successive subframe scheduling (e.g., DCI formats 0, 1, 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 2, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 4, etc.), the bit field indicates whether the DCI message is valid for a single subframe or for a given number of successive subframes. In a modification, the bit field could indicate the number of successive subframes for which the DCI message is valid for. It is also evident that the indication of whether preemptive retransmissions will be used and the indication of the number of subframes/transmissions if preemptive transmissions will be used may be split into two different bit fields).
Mukherjee does not explicitly disclose a first logic state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a bit has a first and second logic state, one and zero.
Mukherjee does not explicitly disclose setting the DCI from the first transceiver to all zero.
Cai discloses setting the DCI from the first transceiver to all zero (Para.[0025] For instance, in at least some embodiments, a resource block assignment field in a DCI formatted message may be set to all zeros. Here, upon receiving and recognizing a DCI formatted message intended for a UA, the UA may determine that the resource block assignment DCI field is set to all zeros thereby indicating that no resources are to be assigned to the UA and therefore that both currently allocated uplink and downlink resources should be released).
Mukherjee and Cai are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mukherjee to include indicating using all zeros in a DCI that no DL transmission is scheduled as taught by Cai in order to optimize resource usage by releasing resources (Cai Para.[0025]).
Re claim 21: Claim 21 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 16.
Re claim 25: Claim 25 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 20.
A SECOND GROUNDS OF REJECTION IS SET FORTH BELOW FOR COMPACT PROSECUTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 16,20,21, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damnjanovic (US 20160113008) in view of Mukherjee (US 20160174259) and Cai (US 20100151874).
Re claim 16:
Damnjanovic discloses transmitting (Para.[0007] The method may include receiving a downlink grant that assigns resources of one or more symbols in a variable length downlink transmission time interval (TTI) and Para.[0050] The designated downlink symbols 240 and designated uplink symbols 260 may be configured by a base station, such as base stations 105 of FIG. 1, and may be communicated to one or more UEs, such as UEs 115 of FIG. 1, via one or more of RRC signaling, a system information block (SIB), or PDCCH signaling. As mentioned, flexible symbols 245 may be switched to be uplink or downlink symbols, and the indication of such configurations may be provided by a base station in a resource grant that allocates uplink resources, downlink resources, or both, and that is provided to a); and
transmitting a preempt signal (Para.[0007] The method may also include monitoring the one or more of the symbols for a control signal indicating that a portion of the resources assigned by the downlink grant is to be preempted), and
Damnjanovic does not explicitly disclose a DCI indicating an allocation grant, a preempt signal with the DCI, and preempted by a retransmission, wherein the preempt signal has a first logic state for a retransmission of a previous transmission and the DCI indicates a format of the retransmission, and wherein the preempt signal has a second logic state when
Mukherjee discloses a DCI indicating an allocation grant, a preempt signal with the DCI, and preempted by a retransmission (Fig. 17 ref. 36 and Para.[0010] The PDCCH/EPDCCH is used to carry Downlink Control Information (DCI) such as scheduling decisions and power control commands and Para.[0011-0013] disclosure parameters and Para.[0085] Resource allocation grants sent using the PDCCH/EPDCCH and Para.[0071] The grants for such preemptive retransmissions may be sent using a modified Downlink Control Information (DCI) message, or be scrambled by a new Radio Network Temporary Identifier (RNTI), or be configured semi-statically using higher-layer signaling and Para.[0085] The use of this new RNTI indicates that preemptive retransmissions will be used for a particular downlink grant).
wherein the preempt signal has a first logic state for a retransmission of a previous transmission and the DCI indicates a format of the retransmission, and wherein the preempt signal has a second logic state when (Para.[0085] In yet another embodiment, an additional bit field is introduced in the DCI messages applicable for successive subframe scheduling (e.g., DCI formats 0, 1, 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 2, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 4, etc.), the bit field indicates whether the DCI message is valid for a single subframe or for a given number of successive subframes. In a modification, the bit field could indicate the number of successive subframes for which the DCI message is valid for. It is also evident that the indication of whether preemptive retransmissions will be used and the indication of the number of subframes/transmissions if preemptive transmissions will be used may be split into two different bit fields – where the bit indicating successive subframes indicates retransmission and Para.[0010-0011] DCI indicates transport format and Para.[0085] Currently, DCI formats used for PDSCH grants such as formats 1, 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 2, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, etc. contain 2-bit fields to indicate the RV for each transport block and Figure 9).
As shown above, Mukherjee discloses a bit to indicate if there is a transmission or not. Mukherjee does not explicitly disclose a second logic state when no transceiver is scheduled for an UL and DL transmission and a first logic state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a bit has a first and second logic state, one and zero. Thus, a first/second state will indicate the presence of a transmission and the second/first state will indicate the absence of a transmission.
Damnjanovic and Mukherjee and are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Damnjanovic to include a DCI as taught by Mukherjee in order to use well-known control signaling formats.
Damnjanovic does not explicitly disclose wherein the DCI from the first transceiver is all zero when no second transceiver served by the first transceiver is scheduled for a DL transmission.
Cai discloses wherein the DCI from the first transceiver is all zero when no second transceiver served by the first transceiver is scheduled for a DL transmission (Para.[0025] For instance, in at least some embodiments, a resource block assignment field in a DCI formatted message may be set to all zeros. Here, upon receiving and recognizing a DCI formatted message intended for a UA, the UA may determine that the resource block assignment DCI field is set to all zeros thereby indicating that no resources are to be assigned to the UA and therefore that both currently allocated uplink and downlink resources should be released).
Damnjanovic and Cai are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Damnjanovic to include indicating using all zeros in a DCI that no DL transmission is scheduled as taught by Cai in order to optimize resource usage by releasing resources (Cai Para.[0025]).
Re claim 20:
As discussed above, Damnjanovic in view of Mukherjee meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Mukherjee discloses scheduling the second transceiver for said one of an UL and DL transmission in a dynamic allocation (Para.[0008] Downlink transmissions are dynamically scheduled);
receiving a negative acknowledgement signal for the scheduling from the second transceiver (Para.[0102] the wireless device 18 sends a HARQ ACK/NACK to the base station 12 to indicate whether the wireless device 18 was able to successfully receive and decode the downlink transport block using the initial transmission and the preemptive retransmission(s));
setting the preempt signal to a first logic state (Para.[0085] In yet another embodiment, an additional bit field is introduced in the DCI messages applicable for successive subframe scheduling (e.g., DCI formats 0, 1, 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 2, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 4, etc.), the bit field indicates whether the DCI message is valid for a single subframe or for a given number of successive subframes. In a modification, the bit field could indicate the number of successive subframes for which the DCI message is valid for. It is also evident that the indication of whether preemptive retransmissions will be used and the indication of the number of subframes/transmissions if preemptive transmissions will be used may be split into two different bit fields).
Mukherjee does not explicitly disclose a first logic state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a bit has a first and second logic state, one and zero.
Damnjanovic in view of Mukherjee does not explicitly disclose setting the DCI from the first transceiver to all zero.
Cai discloses setting the DCI from the first transceiver to all zero (Para.[0025] For instance, in at least some embodiments, a resource block assignment field in a DCI formatted message may be set to all zeros. Here, upon receiving and recognizing a DCI formatted message intended for a UA, the UA may determine that the resource block assignment DCI field is set to all zeros thereby indicating that no resources are to be assigned to the UA and therefore that both currently allocated uplink and downlink resources should be released).
Mukherjee and Cai are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mukherjee to include indicating using all zeros in a DCI that no DL transmission is scheduled as taught by Cai in order to optimize resource usage by releasing resources (Cai Para.[0025]).
Re claim 21: Claim 21 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 16.
Re claim 25: Claim 25 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, Applicant contends the applied references do not disclose claims 16,20,21,25, and 26.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has not provided any arguments against the specific references. The applied references read on the claims as presented in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD SAJID ADHAMI whose telephone number is (571)272-8615. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571) 272-8586. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD S ADHAMI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights