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 .
DETAILED ACTION
a. Claims 1-30 in the present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA :
- claims 1, 13, 25, and 30 are amended
- claims 2, 4, 14, 16, 26, and 28 are canceled
b. This is a final action on the merits based on Applicant’s claims submitted on 03/27/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/09/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Independent claims 1, 13, 25, and 30 previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant's first arguments, see “Dinan merely describes indicating if a downlink grant is semi-persistent and is silent as to any "non-receipt of an initial activation message," let alone receiving "downlink control information" based at least in part on the non-receipt. Thus, Dinan does not teach or suggest at least the aforementioned features of amended independent claim 1.” on page 12, filed on 03/27/2026, with respect to Dinan et al. US Pub 2018/0049217 (hereinafter “Dinan”), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Chen US Pub 2022/0159691, claiming domestic priority 2019-08-15 (hereinafter “Chen”), in combination with previously applied reference CMCC. See section Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 below for complete details.
Regarding Independent claims 1, 13, 25, and 30 previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant's second arguments, see “Independent claims 13, 25, and 30 have been amended to recite similar features. Chen, Dinan, CMCC, Bao, Lee, and Lunttila-alone or in any combination-do not teach or suggest all of the features of amended independent claims 1, 13, 25, and 30.” on page 11, filed on 03/27/2026, with respect to CMCC NPL “Discussion on group scheduling mechanisms”, 3GPP R1-2102900, April 12-20, 2021 (hereinafter “CMCC”), in view of Dinan et al. US Pub 2018/0049217 (hereinafter “Dinan”), and further in view of Bao US Pub 2022/0052793, claiming domestic priority 2020-04-20 (hereinafter “Bao”), have been fully considered but are moot, over the limitations of “wherein the group-common downlink shared channel corresponds to a feedback process identifier”. Said limitations are newly added to the amended Claims 1, 13, 25, and 30 and have been addressed in instant office action, as shown in section 35 USC 103 rejection below, with newly identified disclosures in previously applied reference CMCC, thus rendering said Applicant’s arguments moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12-13, 15, 17-22, 24-25, 27, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CMCC NPL “Discussion on group scheduling mechanisms”, 3GPP R1-2102900, April 12-20, 2021 (hereinafter “CMCC”), in view of Chen US Pub 2022/0159691, claiming domestic priority 2019-08-15 (hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended)
CMCC discloses an apparatus for wireless communications (“detailed group scheduling mechanisms design for RRC_CONNECTED UEs” on page 1, Introduction) at a user equipment (UE), comprising:
receive control signaling identifying a semi-persistent scheduling configuration (“activation/deactivation of SPS group-common PDSCH” On page 5, section 2.3) indicating resources for a first control channel (i.e. “PDSCH”) and resources for a group- common downlink shared channel (i.e. “SPS group common PDSCH”, on page 5, section 2.3) corresponding to the first control channel (“PDSCH” On page 5, section 2.3), wherein the group-common downlink shared channel corresponds to a feedback process identifier (“ACK/NACK based HARQ feedback has been supported for PTM transmission scheme 1, gNB can find some UE(s) miss detect the activation group-common PDCCH if a sequence of NACK is reported, and then UE-specific PDCCH can be used as activation PDCCH to re-active these UEs again. In addition, HARQ-ACK feedback for group-common PDCCH/UE-specific PDCCH for deactivation of SPS group-common PDSCH can also be introduced similar as Rel-15/16 unicast SPS deactivation PDCCH to address the miss-detection issue.” On page 5, section 2.3); and
monitor for signals on the group-common downlink shared channel of the semi-persistent scheduling configuration (“it was agreed to at least support TDM/FDM between one unicast PDSCH and one group-common PDSCH in a slot” and Cases 1-5 on page 9, section 5) based at least in part on the feedback process identifier (detect/miss detect the activation group-common PDCCH if a sequence of NACK is reported (“ACK/NACK based HARQ feedback has been supported for PTM transmission scheme 1, gNB can find some UE(s) miss detect the activation group-common PDCCH if a sequence of NACK is reported, and then UE-specific PDCCH can be used as activation PDCCH to re-active these UEs again. In addition, HARQ-ACK feedback for group-common PDCCH/UE-specific PDCCH for deactivation of SPS group-common PDSCH can also be introduced similar as Rel-15/16 unicast SPS deactivation PDCCH to address the miss-detection issue.” On page 5, section 2.3 and furthermore (“Additionally, gNB can indicate the HARQ process number in group-common PDCCH and UE-specific PDCCH to avoid the HARQ process collision, even PTP can be used as retransmission scheme when PTM used as initial transmission. As for SPS, the HARQ process is related to the SFN, slot number, periodicity and so on, there is also no difference between multiple unicast SPS supported in Rel-16 and multiple multicast SPS, gNB can also handle the HARQ process collision issue with suitable configuration. Therefore, it can be totally up to gNB’s implementation to indicate the HARQ process number in group-common PDCCH and UE-specific PDCCH without additional spec restriction e.g., semi-static allocating HARQ process for multicast and unicast” On page 8, section 3.3).
CMCC does not specifically teach a user equipment (UE), comprising at least one processor; memory coupled with the at least one processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the at least one processor; receive an indication of a plurality of slot offsets for a second control channel different from the first control channel of the semi-persistent scheduling configuration;
receive, via resources for the second control channel, during a slot that corresponds to a periodicity of the semi-persistent scheduling configuration, and based at least in part on non-receipt, at the UE and during a previous slot that corresponds to the periodicity of the semi-persistent scheduling configuration, of an initial activation message associated with the semi-persistent scheduling configuration, downlink control information associated with the semi-persistent scheduling configuration and that indicates the feedback process identifier that corresponds to the group-common downlink shared channel of the semi-persistent scheduling configuration, wherein the indication of the feedback process identifier is based at least in part on the slot and the previous slot corresponding to the periodicity of the semi-persistent scheduling configuration, wherein the downlink control information indicates a slot offset from the plurality of slot offsets, and wherein the feedback process identifier is based at least in part on the slot and the slot offset;
In an analogous art, Chen discloses a user equipment (UE) (“terminal 900” in Fig. 9; [0250]), comprising at least one processor (“central processing unit 901” in Fig. 9; [0250]); memory (“memory 902” in Fig. 9; [0250]) coupled with the at least one processor; and instructions (“The memory 902 may be, for example, one or more of a buffer memory, a flash memory, a hard drive, a mobile medium, a volatile memory, a nonvolatile memory, or other suitable devices, which may store various data, etc., and furthermore, store programs executing related information. And the central processing unit 901 may execute programs stored in the memory 902, so as to realize information storage or processing, etc.” [0255]) stored in the memory and executable by the at least one processor;
receive an indication of a plurality of slot offsets for a second control channel different from the first control channel (i.e. “SPS PDSCH#m in a slot n-K.sub.m, and SPS PDSCH#m”) of the semi-persistent scheduling configuration (“the terminal equipment is configured to receive SPS PDSCH#m in a slot n-K.sub.m, and SPS PDSCH#m is activated, that is, the SPS configuration to which SPS PDSCH#m corresponds is in an active state in the slot n-K.sub.m, n refers to a slot for transmitting feedback information to which SPS PDSCH#m corresponds, and K.sub.m refers to a time-domain offset (PDSCH-to-HARQ-ACK-feedback timing value) between the PDSCH of SPS PDSCH#m and corresponding HARQ feedback, i.e. a slot interval between a slot where the SPS PDSCH#m reception is located and a slot where the corresponding HARQ-ACK information is located.” [0063]);
receive, via resources for the second control channel (“decodes the SPS PDSCH at a corresponding time-frequency position”), during a slot that corresponds to a periodicity of the semi-persistent scheduling configuration, and based at least in part on non-receipt, at the UE and during a previous slot that corresponds to the periodicity of the semi-persistent scheduling configuration, of an initial activation message associated with the semi-persistent scheduling configuration (“the SPS PDSCH reception refers to that the terminal equipment monitors or receives a corresponding PDSCH according to SPS activated DCI and corresponding SPS configuration information. When the terminal equipment successfully decodes the SPS PDSCH at a corresponding time-frequency position, it feeds back ACK, and if the terminal equipment does not successfully decode the SPS PDSCH at the corresponding time-frequency position, it feeds back NACK. Here, the SPS activated DCI (i.e. DCI used for activating the SPS) refers to SPS activated DCI most close in the time domain for corresponding SPS configuration, that is, there is no other SPS activated DCI (belonging to the same SPS configuration) between the SPS activated DCI and its corresponding SPS PDSCH. In addition, the SPS activated DCI may be, for example, a DCI format scrambled by a CS-RNTI. For example, a new data indicator field in the SPS activated DCI used to enable a transport block is “0”, that is, “a new data indicator field for the enabled transport block is set to ‘0’”.” [0071]), downlink control information (i.e. “DCI”) associated with the semi-persistent scheduling configuration and that indicates the feedback process identifier that corresponds to the group-common downlink shared channel of the semi-persistent scheduling configuration (“For the semi-persistent scheduling, the DCI used to activate the SPS contains a PDSCH-to-HARQ_feedback timing indicator field, which is used to indicate an offset k between each PDSCH and a PUCCH resource carrying a corresponding HARQ-ACK information bit, as shown in FIG. 2. Furthermore, in addition to the PDSCH directly indicated by the active DCI, if there exists only the HARQ feedback to which the PDSCH (without corresponding PDCCH) corresponds in a corresponding slot, the UE determines the PUCCH resource carrying corresponding HARQ-ACK information bit according to IE n1PUCCH-AN in the SPS configuration.” [0056]), wherein the indication of the feedback process identifier is based at least in part on the slot and the previous slot corresponding to the periodicity of the semi-persistent scheduling configuration, wherein the downlink control information indicates a slot offset from the plurality of slot offsets, and wherein the feedback process identifier is based at least in part on the slot and the slot offset (“One implementation is that the terminal equipment is configured to receive SPS PDSCH#m in a slot n-K.sub.m, and SPS PDSCH#m is activated, that is, the SPS configuration to which SPS PDSCH#m corresponds is in an active state in the slot n-K.sub.m, n refers to a slot for transmitting feedback information to which SPS PDSCH#m corresponds, and K.sub.m refers to a time-domain offset (PDSCH-to-HARQ-ACK-feedback timing value) between the PDSCH of SPS PDSCH#m and corresponding HARQ feedback, i.e. a slot interval between a slot where the SPS PDSCH#m reception is located and a slot where the corresponding HARQ-ACK information is located. It should be noted that transmission times of HARQ-ACK information to which all SPS PDSCH receptions in the first set correspond are in the same slot (i.e. slot n).” [0063]);
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify CMCC’s method of activation/deactivation of SPS group-common PDSCH, to include Chen’s method for handling feedback information corresponding to semi-persistent scheduling configuration, in order to efficiently performing SPS transmission and reception (Chen [0005]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Chen’s method for handling feedback information corresponding to semi-persistent scheduling configuration into CMCC’s method of activation/deactivation of SPS group-common PDSCH since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 3
CMCC, as modified by Chen, previously discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least processor to cause the apparatus to:
CMCC further discloses receive an indication of a slot offset for the second control channel (i.e. “HARQ process”); and
receive the downlink control information (i.e. “DCI”) on the resources for the second control channel (i.e. “PDCCH”) in the slot (“As for SPS, the HARQ process is related to the SFN, slot number, periodicity and so on, there is also no difference between multiple unicast SPS supported in Rel-16 and multiple multicast SPS, gNB can also handle the HARQ process collision issue with suitable configuration.” on page 8, section 3.3).
Chen further discloses wherein the feedback process identifier is based at least in part on the slot and the slot offset for the second control channel (“one implementation is that the terminal equipment is configured to receive SPS PDSCH#m in a slot n-K.sub.m, and SPS PDSCH#m is activated, that is, the SPS configuration to which SPS PDSCH#m corresponds is in an active state in the slot n-K.sub.m, n refers to a slot for transmitting feedback information to which SPS PDSCH#m corresponds, and K.sub.m refers to a time-domain offset (PDSCH-to-HARQ-ACK-feedback timing value) between the PDSCH of SPS PDSCH#m and corresponding HARQ feedback, i.e. a slot interval between a slot where the SPS PDSCH#m reception is located and a slot where the corresponding HARQ-ACK information is located.” [0063]).
Regarding claim 5
CMCC, as modified by Chen, previously discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least processor to cause the apparatus to:
CMCC further discloses receive an indication of a feedback process identifier offset (i.e. 16 possible HARQ processes) for the second control channel (“Additionally, gNB can indicate the HARQ process number in group-common PDCCH and UE-specific PDCCH to avoid the HARQ process collision, even PTP can be used as retransmission scheme when PTM used as initial transmission.” On page 8, section 3.3 and furthermore “we think the PDSCH carrying system information is out of the maximum 16 HARQ processes in Rel-15/16, that is the unicast service can occupy total 16 HARQ processes.” On page 8, section 4.1); and
receive the downlink control information (i.e. “DCI”) on the resources for the second control channel (i.e. “PDCCH”) in the slot,
Chen further discloses wherein the feedback process identifier is based at least in part on the slot and the slot offset for the second control channel (“one implementation is that the terminal equipment is configured to receive SPS PDSCH#m in a slot n-K.sub.m, and SPS PDSCH#m is activated, that is, the SPS configuration to which SPS PDSCH#m corresponds is in an active state in the slot n-K.sub.m, n refers to a slot for transmitting feedback information to which SPS PDSCH#m corresponds, and K.sub.m refers to a time-domain offset (PDSCH-to-HARQ-ACK-feedback timing value) between the PDSCH of SPS PDSCH#m and corresponding HARQ feedback, i.e. a slot interval between a slot where the SPS PDSCH#m reception is located and a slot where the corresponding HARQ-ACK information is located.” [0063]).
Regarding claim 6
CMCC, as modified by Chen, previously discloses the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the instructions to receive the indication of the feedback process identifier are executable by the at least processor to cause the apparatus to:
CMCC further discloses receive an indication of a plurality of feedback process identifier offsets (i.e. “HARQ process number”) for the second control channel (“Additionally, gNB can indicate the HARQ process number in group-common PDCCH and UE-specific PDCCH to avoid the HARQ process collision, even PTP can be used as retransmission scheme when PTM used as initial transmission. As for SPS, the HARQ process is related to the SFN, slot number, periodicity and so on, there is also no difference between multiple unicast SPS supported in Rel-16 and multiple multicast SPS, gNB can also handle the HARQ process collision issue with suitable configuration. Therefore, it can be totally up to gNB’s implementation to indicate the HARQ process number in group-common PDCCH and UE-specific PDCCH without additional spec restriction e.g., semi-static allocating HARQ process for multicast and unicast” On page 8, section 3.3).
Chen further discloses wherein the downlink control information indicates the feedback process identifier offset from the plurality of feedback process identifier offsets (“For the semi-persistent scheduling, the DCI used to activate the SPS contains a PDSCH-to-HARQ_feedback timing indicator field, which is used to indicate an offset k between each PDSCH and a PUCCH resource carrying a corresponding HARQ-ACK information bit, as shown in FIG. 2. Furthermore, in addition to the PDSCH directly indicated by the active DCI, if there exists only the HARQ feedback to which the PDSCH (without corresponding PDCCH) corresponds in a corresponding slot, the UE determines the PUCCH resource carrying corresponding HARQ-ACK information bit according to IE n1PUCCH-AN in the SPS configuration.” [0056]).
Regarding claim 7
CMCC, as modified by Chen, previously discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions to receive the downlink control information are executable by the at least processor to cause the apparatus to:
Chen further discloses receive the feedback process identifier in the second control channel, wherein the downlink control information comprises the feedback process identifier (“For the semi-persistent scheduling, the DCI used to activate the SPS contains a PDSCH-to-HARQ_feedback timing indicator field, which is used to indicate an offset k between each PDSCH and a PUCCH resource carrying a corresponding HARQ-ACK information bit, as shown in FIG. 2. Furthermore, in addition to the PDSCH directly indicated by the active DCI, if there exists only the HARQ feedback to which the PDSCH (without corresponding PDCCH) corresponds in a corresponding slot, the UE determines the PUCCH resource carrying corresponding HARQ-ACK information bit according to IE n1PUCCH-AN in the SPS configuration.” [0056]).
Regarding claim 8
CMCC, as modified by Chen, previously discloses the apparatus of claim 7,
CMCC further discloses wherein the second control channel (i.e. “group-common PDCCH and UE-specific PDCCH”) comprises an explicit indication of the feedback process identifier (“Therefore, it can be totally up to gNB’s implementation to indicate the HARQ process number (i.e. “explicit feedback process identifier”) in group-common PDCCH and UE-specific PDCCH without additional spec restriction e.g., semi-static allocating HARQ process for multicast and unicast” on page 8, section 3.3).
Regarding claim 9
CMCC, as modified by Chen, previously discloses the apparatus of claim 1,
CMCC further discloses wherein the first control channel is a first group-common control channel (“it was agreed to at least support TDM/FDM between one unicast PDSCH and one group-common PDSCH in a slot” on page 9, section 5).
Regarding claim 10
CMCC, as modified by Chen, previously discloses The apparatus of claim 1,
CMCC further discloses wherein the second control channel is a second group-common control channel, a UE-specific control channel, or any combination thereof (“group-common PDCCH and UE-specific PDCCH” on page 8, section 3.3).
Regarding claim 12
CMCC, as modified by Chen, previously discloses the apparatus of claim 1,
Chen further discloses wherein the feedback process identifier is determined based at least in part on a feedback process identifier field in the downlink control information, a semi-persistent scheduling index, a slot associated with the resources for the second control channel (“one implementation is that the terminal equipment is configured to receive SPS PDSCH#m in a slot n-K.sub.m, and SPS PDSCH#m is activated, that is, the SPS configuration to which SPS PDSCH#m corresponds is in an active state in the slot n-K.sub.m, n refers to a slot for transmitting feedback information to which SPS PDSCH#m corresponds, and K.sub.m refers to a time-domain offset (PDSCH-to-HARQ-ACK-feedback timing value) between the PDSCH of SPS PDSCH#m and corresponding HARQ feedback, i.e. a slot interval between a slot where the SPS PDSCH#m reception is located and a slot where the corresponding HARQ-ACK information is located. It should be noted that transmission times of HARQ-ACK information to which all SPS PDSCH receptions in the first set correspond are in the same slot (i.e. slot n).” [0063]), a radio network temporary identifier associated with the downlink control information (“In addition, the SPS activated DCI may be, for example, a DCI format scrambled by a CS-RNTI.” [0071]), or any combination thereof.
Regarding claim 13 (Currently Amended)
Chen discloses an apparatus for wireless communications at a base station (“network device 1000” in Fig. 10; [0258]), comprising:
at least one processor (“central processing unit (CPU) 1001” in Fig. 10; [0258]);
memory (“memory 1002,” in Fig. 10; [0258])coupled with the at least one processor; and
instructions stored in the memory (“The memory 1002 may store various data, and furthermore, it may store a program for data processing, and execute the program under control of the central processing unit 1001, so as to receive various information transmitted by a terminal equipment, and transmit various information to the terminal equipment.” [0258]) and executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to:
transmit control signaling identifying a semi-persistent scheduling configuration indicating resources for a first control channel and resources for a group-common downlink shared channel corresponding to the first control channel, wherein the group-common downlink shared channel corresponds to a feedback process identifier;
transmit an indication of a plurality of slot offsets for a second control channel different from the first control channel of the semi-persistent scheduling configuration;
transmit, via resources for the second control channel, during a slot that corresponds to a periodicity of the semi-persistent scheduling configuration, and based at least in part on non-receipt, during a previous slot that corresponds to the periodicity of the semi-persistent scheduling configuration, of an initial activation message associated with the semi-persistent scheduling configuration, downlink control information associated with the semi-persistent scheduling configuration and that indicates the feedback process identifier that corresponds to the group-common downlink shared channel of the semi-persistent scheduling configuration, wherein the indication of the feedback process identifier is based at least in part on the slot and the previous slot corresponding to the periodicity of the semi-persistent scheduling configuration, wherein the downlink control information indicates a slot offset from the plurality of slot offsets, and wherein the feedback process identifier is based at least in part on the slot and the slot offset; and
transmit signals on the group-common downlink shared channel of the semi-persistent scheduling configuration.
The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 13 are reciprocal to the scope and subject matter as claimed in apparatus claim 1. Therefore apparatus claim 13 corresponds to apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 1 rejection above.
Regarding claim 15
The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least processor to cause the apparatus to:
transmit an indication of a slot offset for the second control channel; and
transmit the downlink control information on the resources for the second control channel in the slot corresponding to the slot offset, wherein the feedback process identifier is based at least in part on the slot and the slot offset for the second control channel.
The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 15 are similar to the scope and subject matter as claimed in apparatus claim 3. Therefore apparatus claim 15 corresponds to apparatus claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 3 rejection above.
Regarding claim 17
The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least processor to cause the apparatus to:
transmit an indication of a feedback process identifier offset for the second control channel; and
transmit the downlink control information on the resources for the second control channel in the slot, wherein the feedback process identifier is based at least in part on the slot and the feedback process identifier offset for the second control channel.
The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 17 are similar to the scope and subject matter as claimed in apparatus claim 5. Therefore apparatus claim 17 corresponds to apparatus claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 5 rejection above.
Regarding claim 18
The apparatus of claim 17, wherein the instructions to transmit the downlink control information are executable by the at least processor to cause the apparatus to:
transmit an indication of a plurality of feedback process identifier offsets for the second control channel, wherein the downlink control information the feedback process identifier offset from the plurality of feedback process identifier offsets.
The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 18 are similar to the scope and subject matter as claimed in apparatus claim 6. Therefore apparatus claim 18 corresponds to apparatus claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 6 rejection above.
Regarding claim 19
The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the instructions to transmit the downlink control information are executable by the at least processor to cause the apparatus to:
transmit the feedback process identifier in the second control channel, wherein the downlink control information comprises the feedback process identifier.
The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 19 are similar to the scope and subject matter as claimed in apparatus claim 7. Therefore apparatus claim 19 corresponds to apparatus claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 7 rejection above.
Regarding claim 20
The apparatus of claim 19, wherein the second control channel comprises an explicit indication of the feedback process identifier.
The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 20 are similar to the scope and subject matter as claimed in apparatus claim 8. Therefore apparatus claim 20 corresponds to apparatus claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 8 rejection above.
Regarding claim 21
The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the first control channel is a first group-common control channel.
The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 21 are similar to the scope and subject matter as claimed in apparatus claim 9. Therefore apparatus claim 21 corresponds to apparatus claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 9 rejection above.
Regarding claim 22
The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the second control channel is a second group-common control channel, a UE-specific control channel, or any combination thereof.
The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 22 are similar to the scope and subject matter as claimed in apparatus claim 10. Therefore apparatus claim 22 corresponds to apparatus claim 10 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 10 rejection above.
Regarding claim 24
The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the feedback process identifier is indicated based at least in part on a redundancy version field in the downlink control information, a feedback process identifier field in the downlink control information, a reserved field in the downlink control information, a dedicated field associated with the feedback process identifier of the group-common downlink shared channel of the semi-persistent scheduling configuration, a semi-persistent scheduling index, a slot associated with the resources for the second control channel, a radio network temporary identifier associated with the downlink control information, or any combination thereof.
The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 24 are similar to the scope and subject matter as claimed in apparatus claim 12. Therefore apparatus claim 24 corresponds to apparatus claim 12 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 12 rejection above.
Regarding claim 25 (Currently Amended)
A method for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE), comprising:
receiving control signaling identifying a semi-persistent scheduling configuration indicating resources for a first control channel and resources for a group-common downlink shared channel corresponding to the first control channel, wherein the group-common downlink shared channel corresponds to a feedback process identifier;
receiving an indication of a plurality of slot offsets for a second control channel different from the first control channel of the semi-persistent scheduling configuration;
receiving, via resources for the second control channel, during a slot that corresponds to a periodicity of the semi-persistent scheduling configuration, and based at least in part on non-receipt, at the UE and during a previous slot that corresponds to the periodicity of the semi-persistent scheduling configuration, of an initial activation message associated with the semi-persistent scheduling configuration, downlink control information associated with the semi-persistent scheduling configuration and that indicates the feedback process identifier that corresponds to the group-common downlink shared channel of the semi-persistent scheduling configuration, wherein the indication of the feedback process identifier is based at least in part on the slot and the previous slot corresponding to the periodicity of the semi-persistent scheduling configuration, wherein the downlink control information indicates a slot offset from the plurality of slot offsets, and wherein the feedback process identifier is based at least in part on the slot and the slot offset; and
monitoring for signals on the group-common downlink shared channel of the semi-persistent scheduling configuration based at least in part on the feedback process identifier.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 25 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 1. Therefore method claim 25 corresponds to apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 1 rejection above.
Regarding claim 27
The method of claim 25, further comprising:
receiving an indication of a slot offset for the second control channel; and
receiving the downlink control information on the resources for the second control channel in the slot corresponding to the slot offset, wherein the feedback process identifier is based at least in part on the slot and the slot offset for the second control channel.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 27 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 3. Therefore method claim 27 corresponds to apparatus claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 3 rejection above.
Regarding claim 29
The method of claim 25, further comprising:
receiving an indication of a feedback process identifier offset for the second control channel; and
receiving the downlink control information on the resources for the second control channel in the slot, wherein the feedback process identifier is based at least in part on the slot and the feedback process identifier offset for the second control channel.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 29 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 5. Therefore method claim 29 corresponds to apparatus claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 5 rejection above.
Regarding claim 30 (Currently Amended)
A method for wireless communications at a base station, comprising:
transmitting control signaling identifying a semi-persistent scheduling configuration indicating resources for a first control channel and resources for a group-common downlink shared channel corresponding to the first control channel, wherein the group-
common downlink shared channel corresponds to a feedback process identifier;
transmitting an indication of a plurality of slot offsets for a second control channel different from the first control channel of the semi-persistent scheduling configuration;
transmitting, via resources for the second control channel, during a slot that corresponds to a periodicity of the semi-persistent scheduling configuration, and based at least in part on non-receipt, during a previous slot that corresponds to the periodicity of the semi-persistent scheduling configuration, of an initial activation message associated with the semi-persistent scheduling configuration, downlink control information associated with the semi-persistent scheduling configuration and that indicates the feedback process identifier that corresponds to the group-common downlink shared channel of the semi-persistent scheduling configuration, wherein the indication of the feedback process identifier is based at least in part on the slot and the previous slot corresponding to the periodicity of the semi-persistent scheduling configuration, wherein the downlink control information indicates a slot offset from the plurality of slot offsets, and wherein the feedback process identifier is based at least in part on the slot and the slot offset; and
transmitting signals on the group-common downlink shared channel of the semi-persistent scheduling configuration.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 30 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 13. Therefore method claim 30 corresponds to apparatus claim 13 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 13 rejection above.
Claims 11 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CMCC, in view of Chen, and further in view of Lunttila et al. US Pub 2021/0044391 (hereinafter “Lunttila”).
Regarding claim 11
CMCC, as modified by Chen, previously discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least processor to cause the apparatus to:
Chen further discloses wherein the downlink control information (i.e. DCI) indicates the plurality of feedback process identifiers (“downlink control information (DCI) indicating the corresponding PDSCH includes a PDSCH-to-HARQ_feedback timing indicator field, which is used to indicate an offset k between the PDSCH and a PUCCH resource carrying a corresponding HARQ-ACK information bit (referred to as an HARQ bit in brief), as shown in FIG. 1. That is, when the PDSCH is in a slot n, its corresponding ACK or NACK feedback is transmitted in a slot n+k. And furthermore, the DCI also includes a PUCCH resource indicator field, which is used to indicate a PUCCH resource carrying a corresponding HARQ-ACK information bit.” [0055]);
CMCC and Chen do not specifically teach receive control signaling indicating a plurality of offset values, determine the feedback process identifier based at least in part on the indicated offset value.
In an analogous art, Lunttila discloses receive control signaling indicating a plurality of offset values (i.e. “multi-TTI DCI”), wherein the downlink control signaling indicates an offset value from the plurality of offset values (“the UE reinterprets the HARQ process ID in the multi-TTI UL grant as a time offset, relative to the first slot of the multi-TTI DCI, pointing at the subframe, slot, half-slot or symbol of the first CG-PUSCH transmission in the UL CG burst to be retransmitted.” [0157]); and
determine the feedback process identifier (i.e. “HARQ process ID”) based at least in part on the indicated offset value (“UE transmits the first PUSCH within the scheduled M PUSCH transmissions using the HARQ process ID indicated in step 3. Linkage method #1: the HARQ-ID (this may be anything in the range h.sub.1, h.sub.2, . . . h.sub.N) in the multi-TTI UL grant identifies the HARQ ID of the first retransmitted CG-PUSCH transmission. Linkage method #2: the UE reinterprets the HARQ process ID in the multi-TTI UL grant as a time offset, relative to the first slot of the multi-TTI DCI, pointing at the subframe, slot, half-slot or symbol of the first CG-PUSCH transmission in the UL CG burst to be retransmitted. E.g. HARQ ID #0 in the multi-TTI UL grant may correspond to a CG-PUSCH that was transmitted in a slot “x” that was two slots before the slot in which the multi-TTI UL grant was received (i.e. x=2), HARQ ID #1 corresponds to x=3, HARQ ID #2 corresponds to x=4, and so forth. This may provide an alternative link between multi-TTI DCI and CG burst” [0155-0157]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify CMCC’s method of activation/deactivation of SPS group-common PDSCH, as modified by Chen, to include Lunttila’s method for scheduling retransmissions for a burst of configured grant transmissions using multi-TTI uplink grants, in order to efficiently performing wireless signal transmission/reception procedures using slot offsets (Lunttila [Abstract]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Lunttila’s method for scheduling retransmissions for a burst of configured grant transmissions using multi-TTI uplink grants into CMCC’s method of activation/deactivation of SPS group-common PDSCH since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 23
The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:
transmit control signaling indicating a plurality of offset values, wherein the downlink control information indicates an offset value from the plurality of offset values; and
determine the feedback process identifier based at least in part on the indicated offset value.
The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 23 are similar to the scope and subject matter as claimed in apparatus claim 11. Therefore apparatus claim 23 corresponds to apparatus claim 11 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 11 rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8184. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am - 6:30pm.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. 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.
/CHUONG M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights