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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/5/26 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments, starting on page 17, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) have been fully but are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Zhao does not disclose “the plurality of carriers have the same subcarrier spacing.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is unclear to Examiner how Applicant is interpreting the claim language. Examiner’s interpretation of the instant limitation is that “when the one or more first DCIs schedule at least two PDSCHs transmitted on a plurality of carriers” is a condition for “the plurality of carriers have the same subcarrier spacing.” Additionally, the entire instant limitation is a condition for “the one or more DCIs are grouped according to a quantity of PDSCHs scheduled by each of the one or more DCIs, to obtain one or more DCI groups.” Thus, in combination, the claim means that “when the one or more first DCIs schedule at least two PDSCHs transmitted on a plurality of carriers” then “the one or more DCIs are grouped according to a quantity of PDSCHs scheduled by each of the one or more DCIs, to obtain one or more DCI groups” and “the plurality of carriers have the same subcarrier spacing.” Liu discloses “when the one or more first DCIs schedule at least two PDSCHs transmitted on a plurality of carriers” then “the one or more DCIs are grouped according to a quantity of PDSCHs scheduled by each of the one or more DCIs, to obtain one or more DCI groups” in paragraph 89, but does not disclose “the plurality of carriers have the same subcarrier spacing.” Zhao in paragraph 284 discloses that DCI are grouped such that each DCI group corresponds to a single subcarrier spacing. Because Liu already teaches that DCI are grouped according to quantity of PDSCH, in combination with Zhao this would means that each number of PDSCH corresponds to a single subcarrier spacing, and thus the plurality of carriers corresponding to the at least two PDSCH also have the same subcarrier spacing.
Applicant also argues that “the one or more DCIs comprise one or more first DCIs” precludes “the one or more first DCIs are all of the one or more DCIs.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Based on the language of the claim, the one or more DCIs may comprise all of the one or more first DCIs.
Applicant also argues that the cited prior art does not teach all the features of the instant claim because Zhao does not teach condition B or condition C. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim language recites “at least one of the following” and thus teachings condition A is sufficient for teaching all the limitations of the claim. Furthermore, the claim recites “grouping the one or more DCIs according to a quantity of PDSCH scheduled by each of the one or more DCIs, to obtain one or more DCI groups” as a limitation separate from “wherein when at least one of following conditions is satisfied, the one or more DCIs are grouped according to a quantity of PDSCHs scheduled by each of the one or more DCIs” and thus the claim could be reasonably interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art such that the wherein clause is irrelevant and “the one or more DCIs are grouped according to a quantity of PDSCHs scheduled by each of the one or more DCIs” occurs regardless.
Thus, Liu in view of Wang and Zhao do teach all the features of the instant claim.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the remaining claims are based on their similarity or dependence and are thus respectfully disagreed with for similar reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 12-15, 19, 45-48, 52, 56, and 58-61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20230038293 A1) in view of Wang (US 20190103943 A1) and further in view of Zhao (US 20200389914 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses:
“A … transmission method performed by a terminal, comprising: receiving one or more Downlink Control Information (DCIs), wherein the one or more DCIs comprise one or more first DCIs, and the first DCI is configured or defined to support scheduling a plurality of Physical Downlink Shared Channels (PDSCHs);” ([para 0036]: “In S110, DCI sent by a second communication node is received, where the DCI is used for scheduling at least one PDSCH.”)
“grouping the one or more DCIs according to a quantity of PDSCH scheduled by each of the one or more DCIs, to obtain one or more DCI groups; generating a … sub-codebook for each DCI group of the one or more DCI groups; generating an … codebook according to the HARQ-ACK sub-codebook for each DCI group…” ([para 0088]: “In the embodiment, DCI which can schedule more than one PDSCH is referred to as type 1 DCI (that is, the first-type DCI in the preceding embodiment); and DCI which schedules only one PDSCH is referred to as type 2 DCI (that is, the second-type DCI in the preceding embodiment).” ; [para 0131]: “In the embodiment, the type 1 DCI and the type 2 DCI are independently counted to generate sub-codebooks respectively, and the feedback codebook is obtained through the bit concatenation.”)
“…wherein when at least one of following conditions is satisfied, the one or more DCIs are grouped according to a quantity of PDSCHs scheduled by each of the one or more DCIs, to obtain one or more DCI groups: when the one or more first DCIs schedule at least two PDSCHs transmitted on a plurality of carriers” ([para 0089]: “The following embodiment is described using the example in which one DCI schedules two PDSCHs, where the two PDSCHs scheduled by the one DCI may be located on different carriers or on different time domain resources of the same carrier.”)
Liu does not explicitly disclose “Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request Acknowledge (HARQ-ACK)” nor “transmitting the HARQ-ACK codebook” nor “…the plurality of carriers have the same subcarrier spacing…there is no offset between indexes slot index or sub-slot index corresponding the plurality of carriers…the plurality of carriers have the same PDSCH processing capability.”
However, Wang discloses the missing features “Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request Acknowledge (HARQ-ACK)” and “transmitting the HARQ-ACK codebook” ([para 0046]: “Further, in step 103, the UE transmits, on a PUCCH or PUSCH of the uplink time unit, HARQ-ACK/NACK information corresponding to the HARQ-ACK/NACK codebook.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Liu and Wang, to modify the technique as disclosed by Liu, to involve transmitting a HARQ-ACK codebook as disclosed by Wang. The motivation for doing so is that HARQ-ACK is a standard means of feedback and thus using it increases system interoperability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Liu with Wang to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Wang does not explicitly disclose “wherein when at least one of following conditions is satisfied, the one or more DCIs are grouped according to a quantity of PDSCHs scheduled by each of the one or more DCIs, to obtain one or more DCI groups: when the one or more first DCIs schedule at least two PDSCHs transmitted on a plurality of carriers, the plurality of carriers have the same subcarrier spacing; when the one or more first DCIs schedule at least two PDSCHs transmitted on a plurality of carriers, there is no offset between indexes slot index or sub-slot index corresponding the plurality of carriers; when the one or more first DCIs schedule at least two PDSCHs transmitted on a plurality of carriers, the plurality of carriers have the same PDSCH processing capability; the terminal is configured with a dynamic HARQ-ACK codebook.”
However, Zhao discloses the missing feature grouping based on when “…the plurality of carriers have the same subcarrier spacing…there is no offset between indexes slot index or sub-slot index corresponding the plurality of carriers…the plurality of carriers have the same PDSCH processing capability.” ([para 0284]: “As can be seen from the above example, different pieces of DCI may be grouped according to different subcarrier spacings, the one or more pieces of DCI indicating the same subcarrier spacing are divided into the same group, thereby improving the reliability of grouping the DCI.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Liu, Wang, and Zhao to modify the technique as disclosed by Liu in view of Wang, to involve grouping of DCIs based on subcarrier spacing as disclosed by Zhao. The motivation for doing so is that it improved reliability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Liu with Wang and Zhao to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 2, Liu in view of Wang and Zhao discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Liu further discloses “when a quantity of the one or more DCI groups is at least two, generating the HARQ-ACK codebook according to the HARQ-ACK sub-codebook for each DCI group comprises:
concatenating at least two HARQ-ACK sub-codebooks for the at least two DCI groups in a predetermined order to form the HARQ-ACK codebook; and/or…” ([para 0131]: “In the embodiment, the type 1 DCI and the type 2 DCI are independently counted to generate sub-codebooks respectively, and the feedback codebook is obtained through the bit concatenation.” Wherein HARQ-ACK is taught by Wang as discussed in relation to the parent claim.)
Regarding claim 3, Liu in view of Wang and Zhao discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Liu further discloses “grouping the one or more DCIs according to the quantity of PDSCHs scheduled by each of the one or more DCIs comprises: grouping, into one group, DCIs scheduling the same quantity of PDSCH; and/or…” ([para 0088]: “In the embodiment, DCI which can schedule more than one PDSCH is referred to as type 1 DCI (that is, the first-type DCI in the preceding embodiment); and DCI which schedules only one PDSCH is referred to as type 2 DCI (that is, the second-type DCI in the preceding embodiment).”)
Regarding claim 4, Liu in view of Wang and Zhao discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Liu further discloses “…grouping the one or more DCIs according to the quantity of PDSCHs scheduled by each of the one or more DCIs comprises: grouping, into one group, a first DCI scheduling one PDSCH from the one or more first DCIs and the second DCI, grouping, into another group, one or more first DCIs scheduling at least two PDSCHs; or…” ([para 0088]: “In the embodiment, DCI which can schedule more than one PDSCH is referred to as type 1 DCI (that is, the first-type DCI in the preceding embodiment); and DCI which schedules only one PDSCH is referred to as type 2 DCI (that is, the second-type DCI in the preceding embodiment).”)
Liu does not explicitly disclose “wherein, when grouping, into one group, DCIs scheduling the same quantity of PDSCHs, the one or more DCIs further comprise a second DCI used to indicate a Semi-Persistent Scheduling (SPS) PDSCH release or schedule one PDSCH.”
However, Wang discloses the missing feature “wherein, when grouping, into one group, DCIs scheduling the same quantity of PDSCHs, the one or more DCIs further comprise a second DCI used to indicate a Semi-Persistent Scheduling (SPS) PDSCH release or schedule one PDSCH.” ([para 0137]: “For the reception of SPS PDSCHs, there is no corresponding DCI. Generally, when the UE is configured with a dynamic HARQ-ACK/NACK codebook, bits of HARQ-ACK of SPS PDSCHs may be placed after HARQ-ACKs of PDSCHs which are scheduled based on DCI or PDCCHs releasing SPS PDSCHs.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Liu and Wang, to modify the technique as disclosed by Liu, to involve to have SPS PDSCH grouped in as disclosed by Wang. The motivation for doing so is that this is a standard means handling of SPS feedback and thus using it increases system interoperability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Liu with Wang and Zhao to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 8, Liu in view of Wang and Zhao discloses all the features of the parent claim. Claim 8 specifically refers to a limitation alternate to the one shown as taught by Liu in view of Wang and Zhao in the parent claim. Thus, claim 8 also falls within the scope of the teachings of Liu in view of Wang and Zhao.
Regarding claim 12, Liu discloses:
“A … transmission method, performed by a network side device, comprising: transmitting one or more Downlink Control Information (DCIs), wherein the one or more DCIs comprise one or more first DCIs, the first DCI is configured or defined to support scheduling a plurality of Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCHs);” ([para 0036]: “In S110, DCI sent by a second communication node is received, where the DCI is used for scheduling at least one PDSCH.”)
“…obtaining a … sub-codebook corresponding to each DCI group of one or more DCI groups, wherein the one or more DCI groups are obtained by grouping the one or more DCIs according to a quantity of PDSCHs scheduled by each of the one or more DCIs…” ([para 0088]: “In the embodiment, DCI which can schedule more than one PDSCH is referred to as type 1 DCI (that is, the first-type DCI in the preceding embodiment); and DCI which schedules only one PDSCH is referred to as type 2 DCI (that is, the second-type DCI in the preceding embodiment).” ; [para 0131]: “In the embodiment, the type 1 DCI and the type 2 DCI are independently counted to generate sub-codebooks respectively, and the feedback codebook is obtained through the bit concatenation.”)
“…wherein when at least one of following conditions is satisfied, the one or more DCIs are grouped according to a quantity of PDSCHs scheduled by each of the one or more DCIs, to obtain one or more DCI groups: when the one or more first DCIs schedule at least two PDSCHs transmitted on a plurality of carriers” ([para 0089]: “The following embodiment is described using the example in which one DCI schedules two PDSCHs, where the two PDSCHs scheduled by the one DCI may be located on different carriers or on different time domain resources of the same carrier.”)
Liu does not explicitly disclose “Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request Acknowledge (HARQ-ACK)” nor “transmitting the HARQ-ACK codebook” nor “…the plurality of carriers have the same subcarrier spacing…there is no offset between indexes slot index or sub-slot index corresponding the plurality of carriers…the plurality of carriers have the same PDSCH processing capability.”
However, Wang discloses the missing features “Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request Acknowledge (HARQ-ACK)” and “transmitting the HARQ-ACK codebook” ([para 0046]: “Further, in step 103, the UE transmits, on a PUCCH or PUSCH of the uplink time unit, HARQ-ACK/NACK information corresponding to the HARQ-ACK/NACK codebook.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Liu and Wang, to modify the technique as disclosed by Liu, to involve transmitting a HARQ-ACK codebook as disclosed by Wang. The motivation for doing so is that HARQ-ACK is a standard means of feedback and thus using it increases system interoperability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Liu with Wang to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Wang does not explicitly disclose “wherein when at least one of following conditions is satisfied, the one or more DCIs are grouped according to a quantity of PDSCHs scheduled by each of the one or more DCIs, to obtain one or more DCI groups: when the one or more first DCIs schedule at least two PDSCHs transmitted on a plurality of carriers, the plurality of carriers have the same subcarrier spacing; when the one or more first DCIs schedule at least two PDSCHs transmitted on a plurality of carriers, there is no offset between indexes slot index or sub-slot index corresponding the plurality of carriers; when the one or more first DCIs schedule at least two PDSCHs transmitted on a plurality of carriers, the plurality of carriers have the same PDSCH processing capability; the terminal is configured with a dynamic HARQ-ACK codebook.”
However, Zhao discloses the missing feature grouping based on when “…the plurality of carriers have the same subcarrier spacing…there is no offset between indexes slot index or sub-slot index corresponding the plurality of carriers…the plurality of carriers have the same PDSCH processing capability.” ([para 0284]: “As can be seen from the above example, different pieces of DCI may be grouped according to different subcarrier spacings, the one or more pieces of DCI indicating the same subcarrier spacing are divided into the same group, thereby improving the reliability of grouping the DCI.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Liu, Wang, and Zhao to modify the technique as disclosed by Liu in view of Wang, to involve grouping of DCIs based on subcarrier spacing as disclosed by Zhao. The motivation for doing so is that it improved reliability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Liu with Wang and Zhao to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 13, Liu in view of Wang and Zhao discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Liu further discloses “when a quantity of the one or more DCI groups is at least two, obtaining the HARQ-ACK sub-codebook corresponding to each DCI group of the one or more DCI groups comprises: determining that at least two HARQ-ACK sub-codebooks are concatenated together in a predetermined order to form the HARQ-ACK codebook; and/or…” ([para 0131]: “In the embodiment, the type 1 DCI and the type 2 DCI are independently counted to generate sub-codebooks respectively, and the feedback codebook is obtained through the bit concatenation.” Wherein HARQ-ACK is taught by Wang as discussed in relation to the parent claim.)
Regarding claim 14, Liu in view of Wang and Zhao discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Liu further discloses “before transmitting the one or more DCIs, the method further comprises: grouping DCIs, of the one or more DCIs, scheduling the same quantity of PDSCHs into one group; and/or…” ([para 0088]: “In the embodiment, DCI which can schedule more than one PDSCH is referred to as type 1 DCI (that is, the first-type DCI in the preceding embodiment); and DCI which schedules only one PDSCH is referred to as type 2 DCI (that is, the second-type DCI in the preceding embodiment).” Note that the determination of whether a DCI will include a single or multiple PDSCH is essentially grouping the DCI into the group composed of type 1 DCI or group composed of type 2 DCI.)
Regarding claim 15, Liu in view of Wang and Zhao discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Liu further discloses “…before transmitting the one or more DCIs, the method further comprises: grouping, into one group, the first DCI scheduling one PDSCH from the one or more first DCIs and the second DCI, and grouping, into another group, one or more first DCIs scheduling at least two PDSCHs; or…” ([para 0088]: “In the embodiment, DCI which can schedule more than one PDSCH is referred to as type 1 DCI (that is, the first-type DCI in the preceding embodiment); and DCI which schedules only one PDSCH is referred to as type 2 DCI (that is, the second-type DCI in the preceding embodiment).”)
Liu does not explicitly disclose “wherein when grouping DCIs, of the one or more DCIs, scheduling the same quantity of PDSCHs into one group, the one or more DCIs further comprise a second DCI for indicating a Semi-Persistent Scheduling (SPS) PDSCH release or for scheduling one PDSCH.”
However, Wang discloses the missing feature “wherein when grouping DCIs, of the one or more DCIs, scheduling the same quantity of PDSCHs into one group, the one or more DCIs further comprise a second DCI for indicating a Semi-Persistent Scheduling (SPS) PDSCH release or for scheduling one PDSCH.” ([para 0137]: “For the reception of SPS PDSCHs, there is no corresponding DCI. Generally, when the UE is configured with a dynamic HARQ-ACK/NACK codebook, bits of HARQ-ACK of SPS PDSCHs may be placed after HARQ-ACKs of PDSCHs which are scheduled based on DCI or PDCCHs releasing SPS PDSCHs.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Liu and Wang, to modify the technique as disclosed by Liu, to involve to have SPS PDSCH grouped in as disclosed by Wang. The motivation for doing so is that this is a standard means handling of SPS feedback and thus using it increases system interoperability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Liu with Wang to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 19, Liu in view of Wang and Zhao discloses all the features of the parent claim. Claim 19 specifically refers to a limitation alternate to the one shown as taught by Liu in view of Wang and Zhao in the parent claim. Thus, claim 19 also falls within the scope of the teachings of Liu in view of Wang and Zhao.
Claims 45-48, 52, 56, and 58-61 are similar to claims 1-4, 8, 12-15 and 19 with the differences amount to that claims 1-4, 8, 12-15 and 19 are directed towards a method while claims 45-48, 52, 56, and 58-61 are directed towards an apparatus containing generic hardware. Such hardware is taught by Liu in paragraph 184. Thus, claims 45-48, 52, 56, and 58-61 are rejected for similar reasons to claims 1-4, 8, 12-15 and 19.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached on (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412