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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/10/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the First Office Action on 12/16/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment to the claims filed on 03/16/2026 complies with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) and has been entered. Independent claims have been amended. Objection to Specification is withdrawn. Rejection under §112(b) of Claims 34-37 is withdrawn with the caveat explained in response to Arguments/Remarks.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed 03/16/2026 (hereinafter Resp.) have been fully considered hereinafter.
Applicant’s main argument is that Ranta-Aho et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2022/0286235 (hereinafter Ranta-Aho) and Chen et al., Chinese Patent Application No. CN202010093986 (hereinafter Chen) do not teach “in case of a first case that HARQ-ACK information for another slot and the HARQ-ACK information in response to the downlink data associated with the HARQ process of the disabled HARQ feedback are multiplexed and transmitted together” – See Resp. 10:¶2. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the “multiplexing” operation is disclosed in Chen and was cited in the previous Office action, at page 8 (stating that it is possible “to indicate a logical AND operation on the HARQ feedback information of at least one of the target transmission units and the HARQ feedback information of at least one of the non-target transmission units to obtain the HARQ bitmap information,” citing Chen:[¶n0056]). Furthermore, the meaning of “multiplexed” in the context of a HARQ-ACK codebook comprising HARQ-ACK bits, for a person of ordinary skills in the art (POSITA) reading the whole claim in light of the Specification1, is a kind of binary operation (e.g., “OR,” “XOR,” “AND”) to be performed between the HARQ-ACK information for another slot i.e., one ACK/NACK bit, and the disabled feedback process HARQ-ACK information , i.e., another one ACK/NACK bit, and it would have been obvious to POSITA that when the assumption for the disabled feedback process HARQ-ACK information is NACK(0) the operation should be “OR,” and when the assumption for the disabled feedback process HARQ-ACK information is ACK(1) the operation should be “AND” – See also § 9.1, 3GPP TS 38.213 V16.0.0 (2019-12), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Physical layer procedures for control (Release 16)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 38.213) specifying, e.g., at page 57, that “[i]f a UE multiplexes HARQ-ACK information in a PUSCH transmission that is scheduled by DCI format 0_1” and “ the UE generates the HARQ-ACK codebook as described in Clause 9.1.2.1” when harq-ACK-SpatialBundlingPUSCH is provided when the UE is configured with pdsch-HARQ-ACK-Codebook = semi-static; similarly, at page 63, when the UE is configured with pdsch-HARQ-ACK-Codebook = dynamic or with pdsch-HARQ-ACK-Codebook = enhancedDynamic-r16, “[i]f a UE multiplexes HARQ-ACK information in a PUSCH transmission that is scheduled by DCI format 0_1, the UE generates the HARQ-ACK codebook as described in Clause 9.1.3.1.” Therefore, this argument is not persuasive because HARQ processes feedback multiplexing in a HARQ-ACK codebook configured to the UE was known in the art before the effective filing date of the present application.
Applicant further argues that because Chen “paragraph 133 discloses that the reception status for DL data that does not require HARQ feedback is not reported” so that “the size of the codebook may be reduced during generation of the semi static codebook” and “Ranta-Aho proposes not including information corresponding to a disabled HARQ process in the codebook in the case of the semi static HARQ ACK codebook” there is an advantage in that “the feature of the present invention enables more flexible generation of the HARQ ACK codebook by including information on the disabled HARQ process as NACK in certain cases and not including it in other cases” – See Resp.,10:¶3 and 11:¶1. However, neither the references cited nor the present application disclose only one embodiment, therefore the above feature comparison should distinguish first the embodiment context. For example, the present Specification discloses that “a feedback for another slot and a feedback for data of a corresponding (disabled) HARQ process are multiplexed and then transmitted together” as an alternative to “terminal does not include a feedback for data of a corresponding (disabled) HARQ process in a HARQ-ACK codebook” – See, e.g., [¶0192], just like Chen and/or 3GPP TS 38.213 teach that when harq-ACK-SpatialBundlingPUCCH or harq-ACK-SpatialBundlingPUSCH are configured to the UE, the UE is allowed to multiplex HARQ feedback in the codebook, but when these RRC parameters are not configured, the UE follows the default behavior by codebook type (e.g., does not transmit anything for feedback of a HARQ process with disabled HARQ feedback) – See, e.g., 3GPP TS 38.213:55, describing such algorithm in pseudo code. In addition, Ranta-Aho introduces a third alternative, whereby although “HARQ processes 8-11 which are referenced as 630 are disabled . . . proactive K retransmissions are configured for them” and “transmissions between the first device 110 and the second device 120 may still be enhanced by soft combining of the K-repetitions in the buffer of the receiving device, even if the feedback function (ACK/NACK) may be disabled” before generating/not generating a NACK – See [¶0116] and Fig. 6. Therefore, this argument is also unpersuasive.
Claim Objections
Amended Claims 16, 21, 25, and 30 objected to because of the following informalities: "wherein each bit included in the bitmap indicates whether an HARQ process of each of a plurality of HARQ process identifiers is enabled or disabled" would be better understood by POSITA in view of the requirement of dependent Claims 34-37 that “a number of the plurality of bits is greater than a number of the plurality of HARQ process identifiers” and Applicant’s argument that “[o]ther bits have no meaning” – See Resp.,9:¶ II if rephrased as “wherein whether an HARQ process of each of a plurality of HARQ process identifiers is enabled or disabled is indicated by a bit included in the bitmap.” To be sure, the language “each bit included in the bitmap indicates whether an HARQ process . . .” has only one meaning: that each bit in the bitmap must be associated with a HARQ process, therefore there may not be other/additional bits in the bitmap beyond the number of HARQ processes, as required by Claims 34-37.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16, 20-21, 25, 29-30 and 34-37, as amended, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranta-Aho et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2022/0286235 (hereinafter Ranta-Aho), in view of Chen et al., Chinese Patent Application No. CN202010093986 (hereinafter Chen).
Regarding Amended Claim 16, teaches a method performed by a terminal in a communication system (a “method comprises receiving, at a second device from a first device, a first indication of a plurality of candidate retransmission configurations” wherein each “candidate retransmission configurations comprises a transmission feedback configuration” and “communicating with the first device using the target retransmission configuration” – See [¶0008], and an “example of a retransmission configuration may be the HARQ process as defined in the 3GPP specifications2” – See [¶0063], but “[t]he first device 110 may transmit the first indication via any suitable existing messages in current 3GPP specifications or any newly designed messages” – See [¶0067]), the method comprising:
receiving, from a base station, a bitmap indicating whether a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback of each of a plurality of HARQ processes is enabled or disabled using a radio resource control (RRC) message wherein each bit included in the bitmap indicates whether an HARQ process of each of the plurality of HARQ process identifiers is enabled or disabled (“After the attachment of the second device 120 to the first device 110, the first device 110 broadcasts 510 initial (or default) retransmission configurations of HARQ processes in the cell supported by the first device 110,” e.g., for “the downlink transmissions . . . , a total number of 16 HARQ processes are disabled” and “the first device 110 may inform the second device 120 of one or more current retransmission configurations of one or more HARQ processes by a RRC message in a later stage” – See [¶¶0104-5], e.g., “[i]n the example embodiment of FIG. 5, one x-bit message can be used for indicating the enabling state or the disabling state of the individual HARQ processes” whereby “for 16 HARQ processes between the first device 110 and the second device 120 . . . one bit can be configured for one HARQ process, and thus 16 bits can be used for indicating the states of the 16 HARQ processes” – See [¶0109], i.e., a bitmap indicates the enabled/disabled state of each HARQ process used in the DL transmission from the base station)
identifying that each of the plurality of HARQ processes is enabled or disabled based on the bitmap (e.g., in “the particular example of FIG. 6, HARQ processes 0-1 which are referenced as 610 are fully disabled, which means that they are disabled and no blind retransmission is configured for them” and “HARQ processes 12-15 which are referenced as 640 are enabled as in the legacy 3GPP standards” and wherein “HARQ processes 8-11 which are referenced as 630 are disabled” – See [¶0116] and Fig. 6 showing the bitmap with values of “1” and “0” corresponding to the respective HARQ process IDs protecting the downlink transmission, including in the bitmap the number of retransmissions for some disabled HARQ processes);
Although Ranta-Aho teaches identifying an HARQ-acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) in response to downlink data (“after the first device . . . indicates that the HARQ ACK/ NACK feedback is enabled and the time gap between receiving the PDSCH and sending the corresponding HARQ ACK/NACK feedback is 3 time slots. Then three time slots after receiving the PDSCH, the second device 120 sends 320 back to the first device 110 the HARQ ACK/NACK of the PDSCH corresponding to PDCCH carrying the DCI signaling transmitted by the first device 110” – See [¶0133]), including a case where feedback is sent even though the HARQ-ACK is disabled (“where the HARQ function is disabled, for example, no data is maintained in the buffer of the receiving device nor a retransmission is expected, but ACK/NACK information can be sent back to the transmitting device for a link adaptation purpose” – See [¶0072]), Ranta-Aho does not teach identifying a whole HARQ-ACK codebook transmitted to the base station.
Chen teaches identifying an HARQ-acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) codebook including a plurality of HARQ-ACK bits in response to downlink data; and transmitting, to the base station, the HARQ-ACK codebook as prior art (“Existing technology supports the terminal to transmit multiple TB HARQ feedback information transmitted to the network device on a single HARQ bitmap” wherein, e.g., “multiple TBs can come from different TB downlink time slots” and the “HARQ bitmap information can also be called HARQ codebook” – See [¶n0006]).
Chen further teaches wherein an HARQ-ACK bit in response to downlink data associated with a HARQ process of a disabled HARQ feedback is treated differently in different cases:
set as NACK in the HARQ-ACK codebook in case of a first case that HARQ-ACK information for another slot and the HARQ-ACK information in response to the downlink data associated with the HARQ process of the disabled HARQ feedback are multiplexed and transmitted together (when “the information sent by the access network device to the terminal includes binding information in addition to indication information; the binding information is used to instruct a logical AND operation to be performed on the HARQ feedback information of at least one target transmission unit and the HARQ feedback information of at least one non-target transmission unit,” i.e., a slot with downlink data associated with the HARQ process of the disabled HARQ feedback – See [¶n0260], e.g., when “one of the two TBs or the time slots containing the two TBs may require HARQ feedback while the other does not” and “assuming that the data transmitted in time slot 0 requires HARQ feedback, while the data transmitted in time slot 1 does not, then in the state of enabling/disabling HARQ feedback, timeslots 0 and 1 are bound together. That is, the decoding results of the TB transmitted in the two time slots are bound together into 1 bit for feedback” – See [¶n0262] and Fig. 16, wherein, “binding” is reasonably interpreted as “multiplexing,” “assuming that the parameter ‘harq-ACK-SpatialBundlingPUCCH’ or the parameter ‘harq-ACK-SpatialBundlingPUSCH’ is enabled” and “the terminal will perform an AND operation on the decoding results of the two TBs, ACK(1)/NACK(0), to form a bit for feedback” – See [¶n0261], i.e., the HARQ-ACK information in response to the downlink data associated with the HARQ process of the disabled HARQ feedback is “multiplexed” with HARQ-ACK information for another slot; furthermore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art to multiplex the bits by using an OR operation in case “the data transmission of the corresponding shut-down HARQ processes [] still receive HARQ feedback, and the feedback information will be NACK”, e.g., in Fig. 3 – See [¶n0131]);
the HARQ-ACK codebook does not include HARQ-ACK information in response to the downlink data associated with the HARQ process of the disabled HARQ feedback, in case of a second case (e.g., “[w]hen the terminal generates a semi-static codebook, it does not directly feed back the codebook based on all downlink transmission time slots. Instead, it feeds back the codebook through the HARQ enable/disable process indicated by the access network device or the specific time slot configuration indicated by the access network device. This allows the codebook to feed back the reception status of downlink data that requires HARQ, while not feeding back the reception status of downlink data that does not require HARQ. This reduces the size of the semi-static codebook and saves on feedback resource overhead” – See [¶n0133]).
Thus, Ranta-Aho and Chen each teaches a method of a terminal receiving from a network node information about enabled or disabled HARQ processes for downlink transmitted data. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the bitmap transmitted by the first device to the second device UE through RRC signaling wherein each bit indicates whether a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback of each of a plurality of HARQ processes in a HARQ process set is enabled or disabled, as disclosed by Ranta-Aho, could have been combined with the HARQ codebook generated in Chen, including the enhancement of multiplexing the feedback bit of downlink transmission with disabled HARQ process and the feedback bit of a downlink transmission in a slot with enabled HARQ process when either harq-ACK-SpatialBundlingPUCCH or harq-ACK-SpatialBundlingPUSCH is enabled for the UE, because the methods are complementary to each other, i.e., the Ranta-Aho bitmap informing the UE about the state of downlink HARQ processes and the Chen HARQ codebook informing the base station about the result of receiving TB of data at the UE. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution through techniques known in the art. Finally, the substitution achieves the predictable result of reducing the overhead of downlink HARQ signaling, either by not transmitting a bit for downlink HARQ processes with disabled HARQ-ACK feedback or by multiplexing a NACK for a downlink HARQ process with disabled HARQ-ACK feedback with the HARQ-ACK feedback, i.e., ACK/NACK bit, for another downlink transmission, as taught in Chen.
Therefore, Amended Claim 1 is obvious over Ranta-Aho in view of Chen.
Regarding Claim 20, dependent from Amended Claim 16, Ranta-Aho further teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising:
skipping of storing the downlink data associated with the disabled HARQ process, in case that decoding of the downlink data is failed (“the case where the HARQ function is disabled, for example, no data is maintained in the buffer of the receiving device nor a retransmission is expected” – See [¶0072], i.e., no matter whether the downlink TB is properly decoded or not, soft combining is not performed, while soft-combining is performed for HARQ-enabled downlink transmissions, as known in the art – See, e.g., [¶0116] (“the second device 120 may still be enhanced by soft combining of the K-repetitions in the buffer of the receiving device, even if the feedback function (ACK/NACK) may be disabled”); Chen:[¶n0122](“The receiver then performs soft combining of the retransmitted data and the previously received data before decoding, thus obtaining a more reliable data packet than decoding it separately. Then the merged data packets are decoded. If the decoding is correct, an ACK is sent; if it is still incorrect, a NACK is sent, and the process of ‘requesting retransmission and then performing soft merging’ is repeated” for HARQ-enabled transmissions); see also § 5.3.2.2, 3GPP TS 38.321 V15.8.0 (2019-12), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Medium Access Control (MAC) protocol specification (Release 15)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 38.321)).
Therefore, Claim 20 is obvious over Ranta-Aho in view of Chen.
Regarding Amended Claim 21, Ranta-Aho teaches a method executed at a base station (“After the attachment of the second device 120 to the first device 110, the first device 110 broadcasts 510 initial (or default) retransmission configurations of HARQ processes” – See [¶0104] and “the first device 110 may inform the second device 120 of one or more current retransmission configurations of one or more HARQ processes by a RRC message in a later stage” – See [¶0105] including “an indication of the retransmission configuration of the HARQ process for an individual service data flow . . . further improving the flexibility of the retransmission configurations” – See [¶0118]) reciprocating the steps of the method of Amended Claim 16, i.e., transmitting, to a terminal, a bitmap indicating whether a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback of each of a plurality of HARQ processes is enabled or disabled using a radio resource control (RRC) message wherein each bit included in the bitmap indicates whether an HARQ process of each of a plurality of HARQ process identifiers is enabled or disabled – See, e.g., [¶0109] (“one bit can be configured for one HARQ process, and thus 16 bits can be used for indicating the states of the 16 HARQ processes”) and Fig. 6 (wherein “HARQ processes 0-1 which are referenced as 610 are fully disabled” and “HARQ processes 12-15 which are referenced as 640 are enabled as in the legacy 3GPP standards” and considering “HARQ processes 2-7 which are referenced as 620 are disabled” – See [¶0116]).
Because Chen further teaches receiving, from the terminal, an HARQ-acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) codebook with the same limitations as recited in Amended Claim 16 using the same language, and the methods in Chen and Ranta-Aho are combinable for the reasons explained in Regarding Amended Claim 16, supra, Amended Claim 21 is obvious over Ranta-Aho in view of Chen.
Regarding Amended Claims 25 and 29, Ranta-Aho discloses a terminal of a communication system, e.g., UE 120 in Fig. 1, the terminal comprising: a transceiver; and a controller coupled with the transceiver (“the device 900 includes one or more processors 910, one or more memories 920 coupled to the processor 910, and one or more communication modules 940 coupled to the processor 910” which “is for bidirectional communications. The communication module 940 may have at least one antenna to facilitate communication. The communication interface may represent any interface that is necessary for communication with other network elements” – See [¶¶0181-82] and Fig. 9) and configured to perform the steps of Amended Claims 16 and 19, respectively. Because Amended Claims 16 and 19 are each obvious over Ranta-Aho in view of Chen, and Amended Claims 25 and 29 do not contain additional steps to the previous ones, each Amended Claims 25 and 29 is also obvious over Ranta-Aho in view of Chen.
Regarding Amended Claim 30, Ranta-Aho discloses a base station of a communication system (“The communication environment 100 may include a first device 110, which may be a satellite and provides wireless connection for a second device 120 within coverage 122, also referred to as a serving cell 122 among a plurality of cells supported by the first device 110” – See [¶0049] and Fig. 1), the base station comprising: a transceiver; and a controller coupled with the transceiver (“the device 900 includes one or more processors 910, one or more memories 920 coupled to the processor 910, and one or more communication modules 940 coupled to the processor 910” which “is for bidirectional communications. The communication module 940 may have at least one antenna to facilitate communication. The communication interface may represent any interface that is necessary for communication with other network elements” – See [¶¶0181-82] and Fig. 9) and configured to perform the steps of Amended Claim 21, including the step required by the first case, i.e., sending NACK for a disabled HARQ process feedback, and the required limitation of “a number of the plurality of bits is equal to . . . a number of the plurality of HARQ process identifiers”. Because Amended Claim 21 is obvious over Ranta-Aho in view of Chen, and Amended Claim 30 does not contain additional steps, Amended Claim 30 is also obvious over Ranta-Aho in view of Chen.
Regarding Claims 34 to 37, dependent from Amended Claims 16, 21, 25 and 30, respectively, each claim recites the same limitation to the bitmap sent by the base station of Amended Claims 21 and 30 to the terminal of Amended Claims 16 and 25, namely that a number of the plurality of bits is greater than a number of the plurality of HARQ process identifiers.
Ranta-Aho teaches that the bitmap includes a plurality of bits, wherein each bit included in the bitmap indicates whether an HARQ process of each of a plurality of HARQ process identifier is enabled or disabled, as explained in Regarding Amended Claim 16. In addition, the logic of the bitmap explained in Fig. 6 allows for a number of the plurality of bits to be greater than a number of the plurality of HARQ process identifiers (“HARQ processes 2-7 which are referenced as 620 are disabled, and proactive K retransmissions are configured for them, where K=2. HARQ processes 8-11 which are referenced as 630 are disabled, and proactive K retransmissions are configured for them, where K=4” – See [¶0116] and Fig. 6, i.e., the bitmap indicates both that HARQ processes 2-7 are disabled and that up to 4 retransmissions are scheduled for them; therefore, a person of ordinary skills in the art would understand that more than 1 bit per disabled HARQ process is necessary to encode also the associated retransmissions in the bitmap). Because Amended Claims 16, 21, 25 and 30 are obvious over Ranta-Aho in view of Chen, Claims 34-37 are obvious over Ranta-Aho in view of Chen.
In sum, Claims 16, 20-21, 25, 29-30 and 34-37, as amended, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over Ranta-Aho in view of Chen.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Babaei, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0062961 discloses SPS PDSCH transmissions and HARQ feedback codebook whereby UE may be expected to provide HARQ-ACK information in response to a SPS PDSCH release after N symbols from the last symbol of a PDCCH providing the SPS PDSCH release;
Matsuda et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220294569 disclosing skipping of storing the downlink data associated with the disabled HARQ process, in case that decoding of the downlink data is failed;
Chang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0178288 disclosing grantless downlink control information including a bitmap which can include the HARQ-ACK of configured HARQ identifiers (IDs);
Chen Larsson et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0050961 disclosing semi-statically configured HARQ codebook;
Chen, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0045800 discloses a method and device for configuring hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback between terminal nodes, which can accurately control whether HARQ feedback is sent on a Sidelink interface using a HARQ feedback enable rule;
Lei et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220385411 disclosing method and apparatus for one shot HARQ feedback;
Chen et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0393803, disclosing that even in a case of semi-static scheduling, even if some HARQ processes are disabled, HARQ feedback is also performed for data transmission corresponding to the disabled HARQ processes, and feedback information is a NACK;
Muruganathan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0275705 teaches that a UE may override the disabling of HARQ ACK/NACK feedback and will apply the information indicated in the MAC CE activation/deactivation command;
Yin et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0314104 disclosing method and apparatus for configuring PUCCH resources for HARQ-ACK feedback of URLLC PDSCH transmission and determining if ACK feedback is on or off for HARQ-ACK feedback of the URLLC PDSCH transmission;
3GPP TS 38.331v15.8.0 (2019-12), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Radio Resource Control (RRC) protocol specification (Release 15);
3GPP TS 38.213 V16.0.0 (2019-12), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Physical layer procedures for control (Release 16)”;
3GPP TS 38.321 V15.8.0 (2019-12), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Medium Access Control (MAC) protocol specification (Release 15)”;
3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #100-e, R1-2000199, Title: “Corrections on HARQ-ACK feedback,” Source: Huawei, HiSilicon, published, February 15, 2020, discloses corrections to 3GPP specifications related to one shot HARQ feedback;
3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #100-e, R1-2000997, Title: “Correction on HARQ process,” Source: ASUSTeK, February 6, 2020, discloses that HARQ process ID is signaled in the DCI applies to the first scheduled PUSCH. HARQ process ID is then incremented by 1 for subsequent PUSCHs in the scheduled order (with modulo operation as needed).
3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #100-e, R1-2001191, Agenda Item 7.2.2.2.3, Title: “Feature lead summary#2 on NR-U HARQ and multi-PUSCH scheduling” Source: Huawei, published February 24, 2020 and documents referenced therein;
3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #99, R1-2000151, Final Report of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #99 v1.0.0, Source: MCC Support, published February 22, 2020 and documents referenced therein.
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 LUCIA GHEORGHE GRADINARIU whose telephone number is (571)272-1377. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Joseph AVELLINO can be reached at (571)272-3905. 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.
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
1 Here, the Specification simply states that “in a process of constructing the HARQ-ACK codebook for a base station . . . a feedback for data of a corresponding (disabled) HARQ process” is either not transmitted or, when “a feedback for another slot and a feedback for data of a corresponding (disabled) HARQ process are multiplexed and then transmitted together, the terminal configures an NACK for the data of the corresponding disabled HARQ process, multiplexes the same, and then transmits a HARQ-ACK feedback” – See, e.g., [¶0192], therefore the binary multiplexing operation remains the choice of POSITA.
2Ranta-Aho discusses how existing RRC parameters such as dl-DataToUL-ACK field of PUCCH-Config RRC information element can be used to dynamically enable/disable HARQ processes and retransmissions – See, e.g., [¶0087] and Table 4; see also 3GPP TS 38.331v15.8.0 (2019-12), ”Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Radio Resource Control (RRC) protocol specification (Release 15)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 38.331), at page 301-303, describing the dl-DataToUL-ACK field of PUCCH-Config RRC information element, indicating by an integer the slot where HARQ ACK/NACK can be transmitted, referencing § 9.1.2, 3GPP TS 38.213 V16.0.0 (2019-12), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Physical layer procedures for control (Release 16)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 38.213) for its use when the UE is configured with pdsch-HARQ-ACK-Codebook = semi-static.
Prosecution Insights