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 10/15/25 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The applicant has amended the following:
Claims: 26-34 and 36-48 have not been amended.
Claims: 1-25 and 35 have been cancelled.
EXAMINER’S NOTE:
The examiner notes that the current office action is sent as a second non-final rejection due to the examiner mistakenly citing incorrect paragraphs and portions of the previously cited Sengupta reference and the examiner has made the necessary corrections to the paragraphs and portions of the cited Sengupta reference seen below.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 34 and 36-38 are 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.
The dependent claims 34 and 36-38 are objected as allowable because the closest prior art found fails to disclose, teach or suggest either alone or render obvious in a combined teachings of the prior art, the uniquely distinct features in the specific order, structure and combination of limitations together as a whole of the limitations recited in the dependent claims in combination with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/10/25 with regards to claims 26-34 and 36-48 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS:
The applicant argues that … However, to support an obviousness rejection, MPEP @ 2143 requires "all words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art" and MPEP @ 2141 requires consideration of the "claimed invention as a whole." Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of Yang and Sengupta does not disclose or suggest all of the elements of the pending claims. … The Patent Office thus relies on Sengupta to supply the deficiencies of Yang. However, Sengupta fails to properly combine with Yang to supply all of the deficiencies of Sengupta. Beginning on page 8 of the Office Action, the Patent Office refers to paragraphs [0101]-[0102], [0106], [0125], and [0131] of Sengupta to assert that Sengupta discloses a plurality of DCI fields that are jointly encoded. Notably, Applicant could not identify the excerpt of paragraph [0125] of Sengupta relied upon by the Patent Office, referring to bits a2 through a6 representing a jointly encoded value of a HARQ parameter, etc. Nonetheless, Sengupta discloses certain concepts of joint encoding and mentions HARQ processes. However, Sengupta does not disclose a plurality of DCI fields that are jointly encoded and comprise a HARQ-ACK delay field as required by the pending claims. Moreover, Sengupta is unrelated to determining a HARQ-ACK delay value, let alone determining a HARQ-ACK delay value based on a number of HARQ processes and a plurality of jointly encoded DCI fields. As Sengupta departs from the subject matter of the pending claims, Applicant submits that one of ordinary skill in the relevant art with knowledge of Yang would not look to Sengupta to result in what is presently claimed. Accordingly, while Yang and Sengupta lack motivation to be properly combined, the combination of Yang and Sengupta still fails to disclose or suggest at least the combination of (i) determining a HARQ-ACK delay value based at least on the number of HARQ processes and a plurality of fields of DCI, (ii) wherein the HARQ-ACK delay value includes a value of eight, and (iii) wherein the plurality of fields of the DCI are jointly encoded and (iv) comprise a HARQ-ACK delay field. As the combinations of the prior art do not disclose or suggest all of the limitations required by each of the pending claims, Applicant respectfully submits that the obviousness rejections of the claims are hereby overcome and should be withdrawn (See Pages 6-7 of Applicant’s Arguments filed on 12/10/25).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Contrary to the applicant’s arguments the combination of the teachings of Yang as modified by Sengupta together as a whole does disclose the applicant’s argued limitations of “(i) determining a HARQ-ACK delay value based at least on the number of HARQ processes and a plurality of fields of DCI, (ii) wherein the HARQ-ACK delay value includes a value of eight, and (iii) wherein the plurality of fields of the DCI are jointly encoded and (iv) comprise a HARQ-ACK delay field” as will be apparent in the following explanations provided below.
To begin with, the examiner notes that the applicant’s arguments directed towards paragraph [0125] of Sengupta is directed towards the incorrect citations that the examiner has mistakenly made in the previous office action.
However, as the applicant’s arguments are directed towards the previously cited Sengupta reference and in the interest of advancing prosecution, the examiner will address the applicant’s arguments herein.
The examiner also notes that the applicant’s arguments for the combination of Yang in view of Sengupta failing to disclose the applicant’s claimed limitations of “(i) determining a HARQ-ACK delay value based at least on the number of HARQ processes and a plurality of fields of DCI, (ii) wherein the HARQ-ACK delay value includes a value of eight, and (iii) wherein the plurality of fields of the DCI are jointly encoded and (iv) comprise a HARQ-ACK delay field” are not directed towards the combination of the Yang in view of Sengupta reference together as a whole but only directed towards Sengupta individually alone failing to disclose particular limitations (i.e. arguments reciting “Sengupta does not disclose a plurality of DCI fields that are jointly encoded and comprise a HARQ-ACK delay field as required by the pending claims”) and that Sengupta teaches non-analogous art (i.e. arguments reciting “departs from the subject matter of the pending claims”) and that there is no reason to combine (i.e. arguments reciting “one of ordinary skill in the relevant art with knowledge of Yang would not look to Sengupta to result in what is presently claimed and lack motivation to be properly combined”).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where a rejection of a claim is based on two or more references, a reply that is limited to what a subset of the applied references teaches or fails to teach, or that fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references may be considered to be an argument that attacks the reference(s) individually (see MPEP 2145, Section lV).
In addition, the examiner directs the applicant to the highlighted portions of MPEP 2141, Section lll. RATIONALES TO SUPPORT REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 that recites “The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by . . . overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents. . . . . In many fields it may be that there is little discussion of obvious techniques or combinations, and it often may be the case that market demand, rather than scientific literature, will drive design trends.KSR, 550 U.S. at 419, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. … The "mere existence of differences between the prior art and an invention does not establish the invention’s nonobviousness." Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976). The gap between the prior art and the claimed invention may not be "so great as to render the [claim] nonobvious to one reasonably skilled in the art." Id. … The proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious as of the relevant time to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts.” and MPEP 2141, Section ll, Subsection C. Resolving the Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art that recites "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle."Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ."Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. In addition to the factors above, Office personnel may rely on their own technical expertise to describe the knowledge and skills of a person of ordinary skill in the art. The Federal Circuit has stated that examiners and administrative patent judges on the Board are "persons of scientific competence in the fields in which they work" and that their findings are "informed by their scientific knowledge, as to the meaning of prior art references to persons of ordinary skill in the art." In re Berg, 320 F.3d 1310, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 2003, 2007 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In addition, examiners "are assumed to have some expertise in interpreting the references and to be familiar from their work with the level of skill in the art ." PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 86 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Am. Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Sowa & Sons, 725 F.2d 1350, 1360, 220 USPQ 763, 770 (Fed. Cir. 1984).” and MPEP 2143, Section A, Example 2 & Section B, Example 3 & Section C, Example 2 that recites “Example 2: The claimed invention in Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004) was directed to a system which employs a screw anchor for underpinning existing foundations and a metal bracket to transfer the building load onto the screw anchor. The prior art (Fuller) used screw anchors for underpinning existing structural foundations. Fuller used a concrete haunch to transfer the load of the foundation to the screw anchor. The prior art (Gregory) used a push pier for underpinning existing structural foundations. Gregory taught a method of transferring load using a bracket, wherein a metal bracket transfers the foundation load to the push pier. The pier is driven into the ground to support the load. Neither reference showed the two elements of the claimed invention – screw anchor and metal bracket – used together. The court found that “artisans knew that a foundation underpinning system requires a means of connecting the foundation to the load-bearing member” … The nature of the problem to be solved – underpinning unstable foundations – as well as the need to connect the member to the foundation to accomplish this goal, would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to choose an appropriate load bearing member and a compatible attachment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use a metal bracket (as shown in Gregory) in combination with the screw anchor (as shown in Fuller) to underpin unstable foundations” and recites “Example 3: The fact pattern in Ruiz v. AB Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004) is set forth above in Example 2 in subsection I.A., above. The prior art showed differing load-bearing members and differing means of attaching the foundation to the member. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the metal bracket taught in Gregory for Fuller’s concrete haunch for the predictable result of transferring the load.” and recites “Example 2: The fact pattern in Ruiz v. AB Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004) is set forth above in Example 2 in subsection I.A. The nature of the problem to be solved may lead inventors to look at references relating to possible solutions to that problem. Id. at 1277, 69 USPQ2d at 1691. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use a metal bracket (as shown in Gregory) with the screw anchor (as shown in Fuller) to underpin unstable foundations.”
In response to applicant's argument that Sengupta is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992) and the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In addition, the examiner directs the applicant to the highlighted portions of MPEP 2144, Section lV. RATIONALE DIFFERENT FROM APPLICANT’S IS PERMISSIBLE that recites “The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991)” and MPEP 2141.01(a), Section l. TO RELY ON A REFERENCE UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103, IT MUST BE ANALOGOUS ART TO THE CLAIMED INVENTION that recites “In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that "same field of endeavor" and "reasonably pertinent" are two separate tests for establishing analogous art; it is not necessary for a reference to fulfill both tests in order to qualify as analogous art. See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212. The examiner must determine whether a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention when analyzing the obviousness of the subject matter under examination. When more than one prior art reference is used as the basis of an obviousness rejection, it is not required that the references be analogous art to each other.”
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In addition, the examiner directs the applicant to the highlighted portions of MPEP 2143, Section l. EXAMPLES OF RATIONALES that recites “Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. … It is important for Office personnel to recognize that when they do choose to formulate an obviousness rejection using one of the rationales suggested by the Supreme Court in KSR and discussed herein, they are to adhere to the guidance provided regarding the necessary factual findings. It remains Office policy that appropriate factual findings are required in order to apply the enumerated rationales properly. The subsections below include discussions of each rationale along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. Some examples use the facts of pre-KSR cases to show how the rationales suggested by the Court in KSR may be used to support a finding of obviousness. The cases cited (from which the facts were derived) may not necessarily stand for the proposition that the particular rationale is the basis for the court’s holding of obviousness, but they do illustrate consistency of past decisions with the lines of reasoning laid out in KSR. Other examples are post-KSR decisions that show how the Federal Circuit has applied the principles of KSR. Cases are included that illustrate findings of obviousness as well as nonobviousness. Note that, in some instances, a single case is used in different subsections to illustrate the use of more than one rationale to support a finding of obviousness. It will often be the case that, once the Graham inquiries have been satisfactorily resolved, a conclusion of obviousness may be supported by more than one line of reasoning” and MPEP 2143.01 Suggestion or Motivation To Modify the References that recites “Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (discussing rationale underlying the motivation-suggestion-teaching test as a guard against using hindsight in an obviousness analysis). Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 73 F.4th 950, 957-58, 2023 USPQ2d 795 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (the court found an erroneous framing of the motivation inquiry led to an incorrect conclusion of nonobviousness). A "motivation to combine may be found explicitly or implicitly in market forces; design incentives; the ‘interrelated teachings of multiple patents’; ‘any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent’; and the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill." Zup v. Nash Mfg., 896 F.3d 1365, 1371, 127 USPQ2d 1423, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 [107 USPQ2d 1706] (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328 [92 USPQ2d 1849] (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-21)).”
As can be seen from the highlighted portions of the MPEP seen above, the guidelines for obviousness indicated by the MPEP does not require any of the cited prior art to explicitly recite or disclose each and every limitation of the claimed limitation in order to render a teaching as obvious and as such, the cited prior art of Yang or Sengupta alone does not need to teach each and every limitations of the claimed invention as the rejection made on the claimed invention is based on the combination of the teachings of Yang as modified by the teachings of Sengupta together as a whole.
In this instance, the invention of Yang already discloses transmitting a DCI comprising a plurality of fields that includes a HARQ-ACK delay value as can be seen in at least paragraphs [0154]-[0155] of Yang seen below:
[0154] The UE 304, in some embodiments, may receive downlink control information (e.g., PDSCH scheduling delay, HARQ-ACK delay, etc.).
[0155] The UE 304, in some embodiments, may determine the HARQ process number, the PDSCH scheduling delay, and/or the HARQ-ACK delay according to the first control domain in the downlink control information.
As can be seen from the highlighted portions of Yang seen above, Yang, [0154]-[0155] clearly discloses the transmission of a DCI comprising a plurality of fields that includes the HARQ process number and the HARQ-ACK delay and as such Sengupta does not need to teach a HARQ-ACK delay again as is indicated by the guidelines of the MPEP seen above.
The missing aspect of Yang is only directed towards performing a joint encoding on the plurality of fields of the DCI which is clearly disclosed in at least paragraphs [0094], [0111] & [0115] of Sengupta seen below:
[0094] A UE 115 and a base station 105 described herein may implement techniques for scheduling multiple transport blocks with a single DCI block. The base station 105 may transmit the DCI block which includes DCI (e.g., scheduling information) for each of the multiple transport blocks. The UE 115 and base station 105 may further implement techniques to reduce the size of a DCI block which schedules the multiple transport blocks. For example, the base station 105 may encode the DCI block based on an encoding scheme which reduces or eliminates invalid or redundant field combinations. The base station 105 may jointly encode one or more fields of the DCI block to remove the redundant or invalid options.
[0111] Base station 105-a may jointly encode multiple fields of the DCI block 215, such that each possible output of the encoded DCI block is a valid or non-redundant combination. Base station 105-a may generate the DCI block 215 based on a first field, in some cases referred to as the root field. If, for example, base station 105-a first determines the HARQ process ID, the rest of the information conveyed in the DCI block 215 may be based on valid combinations for the selected HARQ process ID. In some other examples, the new data indicator, the RV index, a number of repetitions, or other fields may be selected, where the remainder of the DCI block 215 is encoded based on the selected initial field.
[0115] In some cases, the DCI block 215 may be encoded to omit redundant combinations of the HARQ process ID bitmap, new data indicator field, and RV index. For example, if a HARQ process is not scheduled, the DCI block 215 may not need to indicate a new data indicator or RV index indicated for that HARQ process. Therefore, in some cases, the HARQ process ID bitmap, new data indicator field, and RV index may be jointly signaled. The number of jointly valid combinations may be equal to 9.sup.N, based on eight possible outcomes for each transport block 220 if a HARQ process is scheduled (e.g., from the RV index and the new data indicator (e.g., 2.sub.NDI*4.sub.RV)) and the one outcome in case the HARQ process is not scheduled. If a HARQ process is not scheduled, there may not be a new data indicator and RV index signaled for the unscheduled HARQ process. The number of bits used to signal each of the jointly valid combinations may then be equal to ceil (log.sub.2 9.sup.N). The bit savings from joint signaling across these three fields may be equal to 4N−ceil (log.sub.2 9.sup.N). In an example where the DCI block 215 schedules N=8 transport blocks 220, this may save 6 bits in the DCI block 215. In some cases, HARQ bundling may be supported. If HARQ bundling is supported, k HARQ process IDs may be bundled, and N may be replaced by N/k.
As can be seen from the highlighted portions of Sengupta seen above, Sengupta, [0094], [0111] & [0115] clearly discloses that performing a process of jointly encoding the plurality of fields in the DCI results in an advantage of reducing DCI size and reducing or eliminating invalid and redundant combinations and also discloses that the plurality of fields in the DCI includes a HARQ process field as well as other data.
As can be seen from the highlighted portions of Yang and Sengupta seen above, Yang and Sengupta both discloses the transmission of a DCI that includes a HARQ process number and a plurality of fields similar to the applicant’s claimed invention which clearly shows that Sengupta is analogous art.
In addition, Sengupta clearly discloses a reason for combining the teachings by disclosing that the advantage of utilizing joint encoding on the plurality of fields of the DCI is to reduce the DCI size and reduce or eliminate redundancy or invalid combinations and as such one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize and find obvious that the process of Sengupta may be implemented in the invention of Yang in order to reduce the DCI size and reduce or eliminate redundancy or invalid combinations and further in accordance with the KSR guidelines set forth by the MPEP 2143 as is indicated in the current office action seen below.
Therefore, the argued limitations read upon the cited references or are written broad such that they read upon the cited references, as follows:
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 26-33, 39-41 and 47-49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANG et al. (US Patent Publication 2022/0400506 herein after referenced as Yang) in view of Sengupta et al. (US Patent Publication 2020/0145964 herein after referenced as Sengupta).
Regarding claim 26 and claim 48 and claim 49, Yang discloses:
A method of communications, comprising: and A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processor, are configured to cause a computing system to perform: and An apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code; the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: (Yang, Fig. 4 & [0107] discloses the UE includes a UE transceiver module, a UE antenna, a UE memory module and a UE processor module and each module being coupled and interconnected with one another as necessary via a data communication bus and the BS communicates with the UE via a communication channel; Yang, [0112] discloses memory modules may be realized as any form of storage medium known in the art and memory modules may also each include non-volatile memory for storing instructions to be executed by the processor modules).
determining, by a user equipment (UE), a number of hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) processes configured at the UE; (Yang, [0155] discloses the UE may determine (i.e. reads on determining, by a UE) the HARQ process number (i.e. reads on a number of HARQ processes configured at the UE), the PDSCH scheduling delay and the HARQ-ACK delay according to the first control domain in the downlink control information; Yang, [0220]-[0222] discloses when the HARQ process corresponding to the PDSCH belongs to the first process, the value of the HARQ-ACK delay is selected from one of a first value set and when the HARQ process corresponding to the PDSCH belongs to the second process, the value of the HARQ-ACK delay is selected from one of a second value set and discloses the first process may be a process whose HARQ process number is an odd number and may be a process whose HARQ process number is less than a preset value and discloses the second process may be a process whose HARQ process number is an even number and may be a process whose HARQ process is greater than a preset value).
and determining, by the UE, a HARQ acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) delay value based at least on the number of HARQ processes configured at the UE and a plurality of fields of downlink control information (DCI) received from a network node, (Yang, [0155] discloses the UE may determine (i.e. reads on determining, by the UE) the HARQ process number, the PDSCH scheduling delay and the HARQ-ACK delay (i.e. reads on a HARQ-ACK delay value) according to the first control domain (i.e. reads on based at least on the number of HARQ processes configured at the UE and a plurality of fields) in the downlink control information (i.e. reads on of downlink control information DCI); Yang, [0164]-[0165] discloses the first control domain may be composed of a HARQ process number domain (i.e. reads on based at least on the number of HARQ processes configured at the UE) and a HARQ-ACK delay domain and discloses the BS may indicate (i.e. reads on received from a network node) the scheduling delay of the PDSCH and the HARQ-ACK delay through the first control domain in the downlink control information; Yang, Fig. 11 & [0133]-[0134] discloses the first control domain (i.e. reads on and a plurality of fields) may include a HARQ-ACK delay domain and a second control domain and discloses the second control domain is a PDSCH scheduling delays domain; Yang, [0130] discloses the UE may determine the PDSCH scheduling delay and the corresponding HARQ-ACK feedback delay according to the first control domain, and domain may sometimes be referred to as field, in the downlink control information).
wherein the HARQ-ACK delay value includes a value of eight, (Yang, Fig. 11 & [0139] discloses the indicated scheduling delay of the PDSCH and the HARQ-ACK delay may include at least one of the following: PDSCH scheduling delay is 2, and HARQ-ACK delay is 8)
and wherein the plurality of fields of the DCI (Yang, Fig. 11 & [0133]-[0134] discloses the first control domain (i.e. reads on and a plurality of fields) may include a HARQ-ACK delay domain (i.e. reads on comprise a HARQ-ACK delay field) and a second control domain and discloses the second control domain is a PDSCH scheduling delays domain; Yang, [0130] discloses the UE may determine the PDSCH scheduling delay and the corresponding HARQ-ACK feedback delay according to the first control domain, and domain may sometimes be referred to as field, in the downlink control information).
Yang discloses a DCI is transmitted that includes a plurality of fields but fails to explicitly disclose that said DCI is encoded and therefore fails to disclose “and wherein the plurality of fields of the DCI are jointly encoded”.
In a related field of endeavor, Sengupta discloses:
and wherein the plurality of fields of the DCI are jointly encoded (Sengupta, [0111] discloses Base station 105-a may jointly encode (i.e. reads on are jointly encoded) multiple fields (i.e. reads on the plurality of fields) of the DCI (i.e. reads on of the DCI) block 215, such that each possible output of the encoded DCI block is a valid or non-redundant combination. Base station 105-a may generate the DCI block 215 based on a first field, in some cases referred to as the root field. If, for example, base station 105-a first determines the HARQ process ID, the rest of the information conveyed in the DCI block 215 may be based on valid combinations for the selected HARQ process ID. In some other examples, the new data indicator, the RV index, a number of repetitions, or other fields may be selected, where the remainder of the DCI block 215 is encoded based on the selected initial field; Sengupta, [0115] discloses the DCI block 215 may be encoded to omit redundant combinations of the HARQ process ID bitmap, new data indicator field, and RV index. For example, if a HARQ process is not scheduled, the DCI block 215 may not need to indicate a new data indicator or RV index indicated for that HARQ process. Therefore, in some cases, the HARQ process ID bitmap, new data indicator field, and RV index may be jointly signaled. The number of jointly valid combinations may be equal to 9.sup.N, based on eight possible outcomes for each transport block 220 if a HARQ process is scheduled; Sengupta, [0101]-[0102] discloses For example, the DCI block 215 may include a hybrid automated repeat request HARQ process identifier ID. The DCI block 215 may use a bitmap of N bits, where N may be equal to the maximum number of possible HARQ processes. If a bit in the bitmap is set to 0, this may indicate that there is no scheduled transport block corresponding to that HARQ process. In, for example, an 8-bit bitmap is ‘00000001’, this may indicate that only 1 transport block, in the last of the 8 possible HARQ processes, is scheduled and discloses there may be a restricted number of valid combinations for the HARQ processes and an 8 bit bitmap for eight transport blocks may indicate 256 total possible combinations; Sengupta, [0124] discloses The joint encoding may remove any redundant or invalid configurations from the DCI block such that the number of bits used to convey the same information is reduced; Sengupta, [0094] discloses The UE 115 and base station 105 may further implement techniques to reduce the size of a DCI block which schedules the multiple transport blocks. For example, the base station 105 may encode the DCI block based on an encoding scheme which reduces or eliminates invalid or redundant field combinations. The base station 105 may jointly encode one or more fields of the DCI block to remove the redundant or invalid options).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Yang to incorporate the teachings of Sengupta for the purpose of providing the system with a means to save network resources by reducing the size of a DCI block utilizing an encoding scheme which reduces or eliminates invalid or redundant field combinations (Sengupta, [0094] & [0111] & [0124]) as well as to utilize known quantities of bits and corresponding combination index (Sengupta, [0101]-[0102]) and for the purpose of making the system more dynamic and adaptable by providing the system with various different alternatives in design and functionality, thereby allowing the system to handle a number of various different combination of specific design structure and scenarios and preventing the system from being limited to a single specific design structure and scenario and furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the guidelines to rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness seen on MPEP 2143, that the modification would involve use of a simple substitution of one known element and base device (i.e. performing a process of transmitting a DCI comprising a plurality of fields including HARQ processes as taught by Yang) with another known element and comparable device utilizing a known technique (i.e. performing a process of transmitting a DCI comprising a plurality of fields including HARQ processes, wherein the plurality of fields are jointly encoded and having the fields also comprise 8 bits and 256 index combinations to be utilized in determining different values as taught by Sengupta) to improve the similar devices in the same way and to obtain the predictable result of the system performing a process of transmitting a DCI comprising a plurality of fields including HARQ processes (i.e. as taught by both Yang & Sengupta) and is dependent upon the specific intended use, design incentives, needs and requirements (i.e. such as due to teachings of a known standard, current technology, conservation of resources, personal preferences, economic considerations, etc.) of the user and the system as has been established in MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 27, Yang in view of Sengupta discloses:
The method of claim 26, (see claim 26).
wherein the number of HARQ processes configured is a maximum number of HARQ processes configured at the UE (Yang, [0116] discloses in order to support the application of higher data rate MTC, HD-FDD UE needs to support a maximum of 10 HARQ-ACK process; Yang, [0097] discloses for half-duplex terminals, the downlink needs to support 14 HARQ processes).
Regarding claim 28, Yang in view of Sengupta discloses:
The method of claim 26, (see claim 26).
wherein the determining of the HARQ-ACK delay value further includes: determining that a first number of HARQ processes are configured at the UE; and determining, in response to the first number of HARQ processes being configured at the UE, a first HARQ-ACK delay value from the plurality of fields of the DCI that are jointly encoded (Yang, [0220]-[0222] discloses when the HARQ process corresponding to the PDSCH belongs to the first process, the value of the HARQ-ACK delay is selected from one of a first value set and when the HARQ process corresponding to the PDSCH belongs to the second process, the value of the HARQ-ACK delay is selected from one of a second value set and discloses the first process may be a process whose HARQ process number is an odd number and may be a process whose HARQ process number is less than a preset value and discloses the second process may be a process whose HARQ process number is an even number and may be a process whose HARQ process is greater than a preset value; Yang, [0120]-[0121] discloses for the indication scheme that supports 14 HARQ processes as PDSCH scheduling delay and HARQ-ACK delay, the conventional 5G NR system provides two solutions and discloses in a first solution if the value indicated by the HARQ process ID is less than 10, the UE determines the HARQ process number according to the existing process and otherwise the UE determines the HARQ-ACK process index and PDSCH delay according to the HARQ-ACK delay field in the DCI; Sengupta, [0111] discloses Base station 105-a may jointly encode multiple fields of the DCI block 215, such that each possible output of the encoded DCI block is a valid or non-redundant combination. Base station 105-a may generate the DCI block 215 based on a first field, in some cases referred to as the root field. If, for example, base station 105-a first determines the HARQ process ID, the rest of the information conveyed in the DCI block 215 may be based on valid combinations for the selected HARQ process ID. In some other examples, the new data indicator, the RV index, a number of repetitions, or other fields may be selected, where the remainder of the DCI block 215 is encoded based on the selected initial field; Sengupta, [0115] discloses the DCI block 215 may be encoded to omit redundant combinations of the HARQ process ID bitmap, new data indicator field, and RV index. For example, if a HARQ process is not scheduled, the DCI block 215 may not need to indicate a new data indicator or RV index indicated for that HARQ process. Therefore, in some cases, the HARQ process ID bitmap, new data indicator field, and RV index may be jointly signaled. The number of jointly valid combinations may be equal to 9.sup.N, based on eight possible outcomes for each transport block 220 if a HARQ process is scheduled).
Regarding claim 29, Yang in view of Sengupta discloses:
The method of claim 26, (see claim 26).
wherein the plurality of fields includes: a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) offset field, and a HARQ process number (Yang, [0164]-[0165] discloses the first control domain may be composed of a HARQ process number domain and a HARQ-ACK delay domain and discloses the BS may indicate the scheduling delay of the PDSCH and the HARQ-ACK delay through the first control domain in the downlink control information; Yang, Fig. 11 & [0133]-[0134] discloses the first control domain may include a HARQ-ACK delay domain and a second control domain and discloses the second control domain is a PDSCH scheduling delays domain).
Regarding claim 30, Yang in view of Sengupta discloses:
The method of claim 28, (see claim 28).
wherein the first number of HARQ processes is fourteen (Yang, [0097] discloses for half-duplex terminals, the downlink needs to support 14 HARQ processes; Yang, [0120]-[0121] discloses for the indication scheme that supports 14 HARQ processes as PDSCH scheduling delay and HARQ-ACK delay, the conventional 5G NR system provides two solutions and discloses in a first solution if the value indicated by the HARQ process ID is less than 10, the UE determines the HARQ process number according to the existing process and otherwise the UE determines the HARQ-ACK process index and PDSCH delay according to the HARQ-ACK delay field in the DCI).
Regarding claim 31, Yang in view of Sengupta discloses:
The method of claim 26, (see claim 26).
wherein the joint encoding of the plurality of fields include joint encoding of a plurality of bits of the DCI associated with the plurality of the fields (Sengupta, [0124] discloses The joint encoding may remove any redundant or invalid configurations from the DCI block such that the number of bits used to convey the same information is reduced; Sengupta, [0111] discloses Base station 105-a may jointly encode multiple fields of the DCI block 215, such that each possible output of the encoded DCI block is a valid or non-redundant combination. Base station 105-a may generate the DCI block 215 based on a first field, in some cases referred to as the root field. If, for example, base station 105-a first determines the HARQ process ID, the rest of the information conveyed in the DCI block 215 may be based on valid combinations for the selected HARQ process ID. In some other examples, the new data indicator, the RV index, a number of repetitions, or other fields may be selected, where the remainder of the DCI block 215 is encoded based on the selected initial field; Sengupta, [0115] discloses the DCI block 215 may be encoded to omit redundant combinations of the HARQ process ID bitmap, new data indicator field, and RV index. For example, if a HARQ process is not scheduled, the DCI block 215 may not need to indicate a new data indicator or RV index indicated for that HARQ process. Therefore, in some cases, the HARQ process ID bitmap, new data indicator field, and RV index may be jointly signaled. The number of jointly valid combinations may be equal to 9.sup.N, based on eight possible outcomes for each transport block 220 if a HARQ process is scheduled).
Regarding claim 32, Yang in view of Sengupta discloses:
The method of claim 26, (see claim 26).
wherein the plurality of fields includes eight bits of the DCI (Sengupta, [0101]-[0102] discloses For example, the DCI block 215 may include a hybrid automated repeat request HARQ process identifier ID. The DCI block 215 may use a bitmap of N bits, where N may be equal to the maximum number of possible HARQ processes. If a bit in the bitmap is set to 0, this may indicate that there is no scheduled transport block corresponding to that HARQ process. In, for example, an 8-bit bitmap is ‘00000001’, this may indicate that only 1 transport block, in the last of the 8 possible HARQ processes, is scheduled and discloses there may be a restricted number of valid combinations for the HARQ processes and an 8 bit bitmap for eight transport blocks may indicate 256 total possible combinations).
Regarding claim 33, Yang in view of Sengupta discloses:
The method of claim 26, (see claim 26).
wherein the joint encoding provides 256 index values (Sengupta, [0101]-[0102] discloses For example, the DCI block 215 may include a hybrid automated repeat request HARQ process identifier ID. The DCI block 215 may use a bitmap of N bits, where N may be equal to the maximum number of possible HARQ processes. If a bit in the bitmap is set to 0, this may indicate that there is no scheduled transport block corresponding to that HARQ process. In, for example, an 8-bit bitmap is ‘00000001’, this may indicate that only 1 transport block, in the last of the 8 possible HARQ processes, is scheduled and discloses there may be a restricted number of valid combinations for the HARQ processes and an 8 bit bitmap for eight transport blocks may indicate 256 total possible combinations).
Regarding claim 39, Yang in view of Sengupta discloses:
The method of claim 28, (see claim 28).
wherein the determining of the HARQ- ACK delay value further includes: determining that a second number of HARQ processes are configured at the UE; and determining, in response to determining that the second number of HARQ processes are configured at the UE, a second HARQ-ACK delay value from a parameter of the DCI (Yang, [0220]-[0222] discloses when the HARQ process corresponding to the PDSCH belongs to the first process, the value of the HARQ-ACK delay is selected from one of a first value set and when the HARQ process corresponding to the PDSCH belongs to the second process, the value of the HARQ-ACK delay is selected from one of a second value set and discloses the first process may be a process whose HARQ process number is an odd number and may be a process whose HARQ process number is less than a preset value and discloses the second process may be a process whose HARQ process number is an even number and may be a process whose HARQ process is greater than a preset value; Yang, [0120]-[0121] discloses for the indication scheme that supports 14 HARQ processes as PDSCH scheduling delay and HARQ-ACK delay, the conventional 5G NR system provides two solutions and discloses in a first solution if the value indicated by the HARQ process ID is less than 10, the UE determines the HARQ process number according to the existing process and otherwise the UE determines the HARQ-ACK process index and PDSCH delay according to the HARQ-ACK delay field in the DCI; Sengupta, [0124] discloses The joint encoding may remove any redundant or invalid configurations from the DCI block such that the number of bits used to convey the same information is reduced; Sengupta, [0111] discloses Base station 105-a may jointly encode multiple fields of the DCI block 215, such that each possible output of the encoded DCI block is a valid or non-redundant combination. Base station 105-a may generate the DCI block 215 based on a first field, in some cases referred to as the root field. If, for example, base station 105-a first determines the HARQ process ID, the rest of the information conveyed in the DCI block 215 may be based on valid combinations for the selected HARQ process ID. In some other examples, the new data indicator, the RV index, a number of repetitions, or other fields may be selected, where the remainder of the DCI block 215 is encoded based on the selected initial field; Sengupta, [0115] discloses the DCI block 215 may be encoded to omit redundant combinations of the HARQ process ID bitmap, new data indicator field, and RV index. For example, if a HARQ process is not scheduled, the DCI block 215 may not need to indicate a new data indicator or RV index indicated for that HARQ process. Therefore, in some cases, the HARQ process ID bitmap, new data indicator field, and RV index may be jointly signaled. The number of jointly valid combinations may be equal to 9.sup.N, based on eight possible outcomes for each transport block 220 if a HARQ process is scheduled).
Regarding claim 40, Yang in view of Sengupta discloses:
The method of claim 39, (see claim 39).
wherein the second HARQ-ACK delay value is determined from a HARQ-ACK delay parameter in the DCI (Yang, [0120]-[0121] discloses for the indication scheme that supports 14 HARQ processes as PDSCH scheduling delay and HARQ-ACK delay, the conventional 5G NR system provides two solutions and discloses in a first solution if the value indicated by the HARQ process ID is less than 10, the UE determines the HARQ process number according to the existing process and otherwise the UE determines the HARQ-ACK process index and PDSCH delay according to the HARQ-ACK delay field in the DCI; Yang, [0220]-[0222] discloses when the HARQ process corresponding to the PDSCH belongs to the first process, the value of the HARQ-ACK delay is selected from one of a first value set and when the HARQ process corresponding to the PDSCH belongs to the second process, the value of the HARQ-ACK delay is selected from one of a second value set and discloses the first process may be a process whose HARQ process number is an odd number and may be a process whose HARQ process number is less than a preset value and discloses the second process may be a process whose HARQ process number is an even number and may be a process whose HARQ process is greater than a preset value).
Regarding claim 41, Yang in view of Sengupta discloses:
The method of claim 40, (see claim 40).
wherein the second number of HARQ processes is ten (Yang, [0120]-[0121] discloses for the indication scheme that supports 14 HARQ processes as PDSCH scheduling delay and HARQ-ACK delay, the conventional 5G NR system provides two solutions and discloses in a first solution if the value indicated by the HARQ process ID is less than 10, the UE determines the HARQ process number according to the existing process and otherwise the UE determines the HARQ-ACK process index and PDSCH delay according to the HARQ-ACK delay field in the DCI; Yang, [0220]-[0222] discloses when the HARQ process corresponding to the PDSCH belongs to the first process, the value of the HARQ-ACK delay is selected from one of a first value set and when the HARQ process corresponding to the PDSCH belongs to the second process, the value of the HARQ-ACK delay is selected from one of a second value set and discloses the first process may be a process whose HARQ process number is an odd number and may be a process whose HARQ process number is less than a preset value and discloses the second process may be a process whose HARQ process number is an even number and may be a process whose HARQ process is greater than a preset value).
Regarding claim 47, Yang in view of Sengupta discloses:
The method of claim 26, (see claim 26).
wherein the network node is an eNB (Yang, [0111] discloses the BS may be an evolved node B eNB; Yang, [0165] discloses the BS may indicate the scheduling delay of the PDSCH and the HARQ-ACK delay through the first control domain in the downlink control information).
Claim(s) 42-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANG et al. (US Patent Publication 2022/0400506 herein after referenced as Yang) in view of Sengupta et al. (US Patent Publication 2020/0145964 herein after referenced as Sengupta) and further in view of NPL Document “Increased peak data rate for HD-FDD MTC UEs” (3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #99; R1-1912694; Reno, USA, November 18th – 22nd, 2019 herein after referenced as 3GPP).
Regarding claim 42, Yang in view of Sengupta discloses:
The method of claim 26, (see claim 26).
Yang in view of Sengupta discloses determining the HARQ-ACK delay according to a plurality of fields including the number of HARQ processes being utilized but fails to explicitly recite that the NDI is utilized in determining the HARQ-ACK delay and therefore fails to disclose “wherein the determining of the HARQ-ACK delay value further includes: determining that a first number of HARQ processes are configured at the UE; and determining, in response to the first number of HARQ processes being configured at the UE, the HARQ-ACK delay value from the HARQ-ACK delay field and a new data identifier (NDI) field of the DCI.”
In a related field of endeavor, 3GPP discloses:
wherein the determining of the HARQ-ACK delay value further includes: determining that a first number of HARQ processes are configured at the UE; and determining, in response to the first number of HARQ processes being configured at the UE, the HARQ-ACK delay value from the HARQ-ACK delay field and a new data identifier (NDI) field of the DCI (3GPP, Pages 2-3, Sections 2.1-2.2 discloses for HARQ processes 0-9, the operation is exactly the same as legacy and when the DCI indicates a HARQ process ID smaller than 10, no change to scheduling delay or HARQ-ACK delay is made and when the DCI indicates a HARQ process with an ID greater than or equal to 10, the HARQ ID field and HARQ-ACK delay indicate the PDSCH scheduling delay and we exploit the fact that the HARQ-ID field in DCI can indicate 16 HARQ IDs but we only need to use 14 of them to achieve peak data rate and in Table 1, we show a possible implementation of these methods and the UE performs the following operations: If HARQ_ID < 10, follow legacy procedures to determine HARQ_ID, HARQ-ACK delay and PDSCH delay = 2 else obtain HARQ_ID and PDSCH delay from ‘HARQ-ACK delay’ field in DCI as per Table 1 and obtain HARQ-ACK delay from ‘HARQ-ID’ field in DCI as per Table 2 and discloses when 14 HARQ processes are configured, there is an additional bit in DCI that indicates a PDSCH scheduling delay of 2 for legacy or 7 for new and the set of HARQ-ACK delay is modified when 14 HARQ processes are used as per the following table and the table in section 2.2 shows a HARQ-ACK delay field in DCI, HARQ-ACK delay value when ‘ce-scheduling enhancement’ set to ‘range 1’ and ‘ce-pdsch-fourteenprocess’ is not set, HARQ-ACK delay value when ‘ce-scheduling enhancement’ set to ‘range2’ or ‘ce-HARQ-ACKBundling’ is set and ce-pdsch-fourteenprcesses’ is not set and HARQ-ACK delay value when ce-pdsch-fourteenprocesses’ is set).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Yang in view of Sengupta to incorporate the teachings of Sengupta for the purpose of providing the system with a means to identify whether to utilize legacy or new parameters (3GPP, Pages 2-3, Section 2.2) conforming to the guidelines set forth by a known and accepted standard and for the purpose of making the system more dynamic and adaptable by providing the system with various different alternatives in design and functionality, thereby allowing the system to handle a number of various different combination of specific design structure and scenarios and preventing the system from being limited to a single specific design structure and scenario and furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the guidelines to rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness seen on MPEP 2143, that the modification would involve use of a simple substitution of one known element and base device (i.e. performing a process of HARQ-ACK delay according to a plurality of fields including the number of HARQ processes being utilized as taught by Yang) with another known element and comparable device utilizing a known technique (i.e. performing a process of HARQ-ACK delay according to a plurality of fields including the number of HARQ processes being utilized, wherein the field includes an NDI field as taught by 3GPP) to improve the similar devices in the same way and to obtain the predictable result of the system performing a process of HARQ-ACK delay according to a plurality of fields including the number of HARQ processes being utilized (i.e. as taught by both Yang & 3GPP) and is dependent upon the specific intended use, design incentives, needs and requirements (i.e. such as due to teachings of a known standard, current technology, conservation of resources, personal preferences, economic considerations, etc.) of the user and the system as has been established in MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 43, Yang in view of Sengupta and further in view of 3GPP discloses:
The method of claim 42, (see claim 42).
wherein the first number of HARQ processes is fourteen (Yang, [0097] discloses for half-duplex terminals, the downlink needs to support 14 HARQ processes; Yang, [0120]-[0121] discloses for the indication scheme that supports 14 HARQ processes as PDSCH scheduling delay and HARQ-ACK delay, the conventional 5G NR system provides two solutions and discloses in a first solution if the value indicated by the HARQ process ID is less than 10, the UE determines the HARQ process number according to the existing process and otherwise the UE determines the HARQ-ACK process index and PDSCH delay according to the HARQ-ACK delay field in the DCI; 3GPP, Pages 2-3, Section 2.2 discloses when 14 HARQ processes are configured, there is an additional bit in DCI that indicates a PDSCH scheduling delay of 2 for legacy or 7 for new and the set of HARQ-ACK delay is modified when 14 HARQ processes are used as per the following table and the table in section 2.2 shows a HARQ-ACK delay field in DCI, HARQ-ACK delay value when ‘ce-scheduling enhancement’ set to ‘range 1’ and ‘ce-pdsch-fourteenprocess’ is not set, HARQ-ACK delay value when ‘ce-scheduling enhancement’ set to ‘range2’ or ‘ce-HARQ-AckBundling’ is set and ce-pdsch-fourteenprcesses’ is not set and HARQ-ACK delay value when ce-pdsch-fourteenprocesses’ is set).
Regarding claim 44, Yang in view of Sengupta and further in view of 3GPP discloses:
The method of claim 43, (see claim 43).
wherein a value in the NDI field indicates whether a transmission is a new transmission(3GPP, Pages 2-3, Section 2.2 discloses when 14 HARQ processes are configured, there is an additional bit in DCI that indicates a PDSCH scheduling delay of 2 for legacy or 7 for new and the set of HARQ-ACK delay is modified when 14 HARQ processes are used as per the following table and the table in section 2.2 shows a HARQ-ACK delay field in DCI, HARQ-ACK delay value when ‘ce-scheduling enhancement’ set to ‘range 1’ and ‘ce-pdsch-fourteenprocess’ is not set, HARQ-ACK delay value when ‘ce-scheduling enhancement’ set to ‘range2’ or ‘ce-HARQ-AckBundling’ is set and ce-pdsch-fourteenprcesses’ is not set and HARQ-ACK delay value when ce-pdsch-fourteenprocesses’ is set).
Regarding claim 45, Yang in view of Sengupta and further in view of 3GPP discloses:
The method of claim 42, (see claim 42).
wherein the determining of the HARQ- ACK delay value further includes: determining that a second number of HARQ processes are configured at the UE; and determining, in response to the second number of HARQ processes being configured at the UE, the HARQ-ACK delay value from the HARQ-ACK delay field of the DCI (Yang, [0120]-[0121] discloses for the indication scheme that supports 14 HARQ processes as PDSCH scheduling delay and HARQ-ACK delay, the conventional 5G NR system provides two solutions and discloses in a first solution if the value indicated by the HARQ process ID is less than 10, the UE determines the HARQ process number according to the existing process and otherwise the UE determines the HARQ-ACK process index and PDSCH delay according to the HARQ-ACK delay field in the DCI; Yang, [0220]-[0222] discloses when the HARQ process corresponding to the PDSCH belongs to the first process, the value of the HARQ-ACK delay is selected from one of a first value set and when the HARQ process corresponding to the PDSCH belongs to the second process, the value of the HARQ-ACK delay is selected from one of a second value set and discloses the first process may be a process whose HARQ process number is an odd number and may be a process whose HARQ process number is less than a preset value and discloses the second process may be a process whose HARQ process number is an even number and may be a process whose HARQ process is greater than a preset value; 3GPP, Pages 2-3, Sections 2.1-2.2 discloses for HARQ processes 0-9, the operation is exactly the same as legacy and when the DCI indicates a HARQ process ID smaller than 10, no change to scheduling delay or HARQ-ACK delay is made and when the DCI indicates a HARQ process with an ID greater than or equal to 10, the HARQ ID field and HARQ-ACK delay indicate the PDSCH scheduling delay and we exploit the fact that the HARQ-ID field in DCI can indicate 16 HARQ IDs but we only need to use 14 of them to achieve peak data rate and in Table 1, we show a possible implementation of these methods and the UE performs the following operations: If HARQ_ID < 10, follow legacy procedures to determine HARQ_ID, HARQ-ACK delay and PDSCH delay = 2 else obtain HARQ_ID and PDSCH delay from ‘HARQ-ACK delay’ field in DCI as per Table 1 and obtain HARQ-ACK delay from ‘HARQ-ID’ field in DCI as per Table 2 and discloses when 14 HARQ processes are configured, there is an additional bit in DCI that indicates a PDSCH scheduling delay of 2 for legacy or 7 for new and the set of HARQ-ACK delay is modified when 14 HARQ processes are used as per the following table and the table in section 2.2 shows a HARQ-ACK delay field in DCI, HARQ-ACK delay value when ‘ce-scheduling enhancement’ set to ‘range 1’ and ‘ce-pdsch-fourteenprocess’ is not set, HARQ-ACK delay value when ‘ce-scheduling enhancement’ set to ‘range2’ or ‘ce-HARQ-ACKBundling’ is set and ce-pdsch-fourteenprcesses’ is not set and HARQ-ACK delay value when ce-pdsch-fourteenprocesses’ is set).
Regarding claim 46, Yang in view of Sengupta and further in view of 3GPP discloses:
The method of claim 45, (see claim 45).
wherein the second number of HARQ processes is fourteen (Yang, [0097] discloses for half-duplex terminals, the downlink needs to support 14 HARQ processes; Yang, [0120]-[0121] discloses for the indication scheme that supports 14 HARQ processes as PDSCH scheduling delay and HARQ-ACK delay, the conventional 5G NR system provides two solutions and discloses in a first solution if the value indicated by the HARQ process ID is less than 10, the UE determines the HARQ process number according to the existing process and otherwise the UE determines the HARQ-ACK process index and PDSCH delay according to the HARQ-ACK delay field in the DCI; 3GPP, Pages 2-3, Section 2.2 discloses when 14 HARQ processes are configured, there is an additional bit in DCI that indicates a PDSCH scheduling delay of 2 for legacy or 7 for new and the set of HARQ-ACK delay is modified when 14 HARQ processes are used as per the following table and the table in section 2.2 shows a HARQ-ACK delay field in DCI, HARQ-ACK delay value when ‘ce-scheduling enhancement’ set to ‘range 1’ and ‘ce-pdsch-fourteenprocess’ is not set, HARQ-ACK delay value when ‘ce-scheduling enhancement’ set to ‘range2’ or ‘ce-HARQ-AckBundling’ is set and ce-pdsch-fourteenprcesses’ is not set and HARQ-ACK delay value when ce-pdsch-fourteenprocesses’ is set).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y MAPA whose telephone number is (571)270-5540. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday: 10 AM - 8 PM 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, Anthony Addy can be reached at (571) 272 - 7795. 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.
/MICHAEL Y MAPA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645