DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on: 08/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the claims filed on:06/26/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9, 11, 13-15, 17, and 19-20 are pending for Examination.
Claims 1, 9, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 2, 4-5, 8, 10, 12, 16, and 18 have been cancelled to date.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to claims 1, 9, and 15, Applicant argues that Khoshnevisan, Zeng, and Papasakellariou fail to teach/suggest the amended claim feature of: “determining (by a terminal device) a first bit of a first counter DAI in a first Downlink Control Information (DCI) format, wherein the first bit of the first counter DAI is agreed in a protocol, and a number of the first bit is larger than 1.” Applicant’s Remarks at pp. 8-9. However, the Examiner notes that the above-contested claim feature is now substantially rejected based upon a new ground of rejection under §103, including the combination of Yang, as opposed to Zeng.
Applicant initially argues that the previous prior art combination (including Zeng) failed to read on the above claim features because the claimed “determining” step where a first bit of a first cDAI of a first DCI format is determined by a “terminal device” as agreed to in a protocol, was lacking. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 8. In this context, Applicant suggests that the prior art of the previous Office Action contrarily describes a BS determining the first bit of the first cDAI and then configuring the UE/terminal with the first bit, as opposed to a UE determining the first bit according to a protocol/standard, i.e., considering a DCI format utilized.
However, this argument is substantially rendered moot as Yang (new prior art) is presently relied-upon to read on the contested claim feature where a terminal device can itself determine a first bit of a first cDAI according to a communication standard, i.e., protocol, as a predetermined rule. For example, Yang teaches that bits of its cDAI can be designated by a communication standard at para. [0119], as opposed to requiring seperate RRC configuration signaling, where a corresponding first bit of a cDAI for a recevied DCI with format 1_2 may be determined by a UE to be equal to two, an equivalence “known beforehand” per the relevant communication standard but determined based on DCI format (paras. [0046], [0063]-[0065], [0114] and [0119]).
Thus, Yang effectively cures any deficiencies of Khoshnevisan, by sufficiently reading on the argued claim limitation of a terminal device determining a first bit of a first counter DAI in a first DCI format, wherein the first bit of the first counter DAI is agreed in a protocol, and a number of the first bit is larger than 1, i.e., for DCI format 1_2 the bit-length is determined at a UE to be equal to 2. Moreover, it would be obvious to modify Khoshnevisan’s determination of a first bit of a first counter DAI of a first DCI format, with that of a protocol-designated first bit cDAI value to reduce configuration processing overhead by assigning the first bit of a cDAI to a protocol-designated value, as taught by Yang.
For all of the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments asserted with respect to the rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 15 under §103 are determined not to be persuasive or have otherwise been rendered moot based on the new ground of rejection, i.e., the combination of Yang.
With respect to the dependent claims, Applicant only argues these claims as being allowable based on their respective dependence from one of the above-indicated independent claims. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 10. As such, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the dependent claims are likewise determined not to be persuasive or have otherwise rendered moot, for the same reasons described above for the respective independent claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 14-15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub No. 2020/0336239 A1, Khoshnevisan et al. (hereinafter “Khoshnevisan”) in view of US PG Pub No. 2021/0211237, Yang et al. (hereinafter “Yang”), in further view of US PG Pub 2020/0083980 A1, Papasakellariou et al. (hereinafter “Papasakellariou”).
With respect to claim 1, Khoshnevisan teaches:
A method for configuring a Downlink Allocation Index (DAI), applied to a terminal device (paras. [0060]-[0063]; and Wireless Communications Network 200 with BS 105 and UE 115 of Fig. 2), the method comprising:
determining a first bit of a first counter DAI in a first Downlink Control Information (DCI) format, (paras. [0020]-[0021], [0093]-[0095], and [0098]-[0099]; Fig. 3 and modulo operation of Fig. 4 —a c-DAI can have multiple bits which can be determined by a BS to correspond to different c-DAI values —a first bit value of an n-bit c-DAI associated with first DCI can be 0 indicated as “00,” employing a modulo operation —DCI transmissions on the PDCCH may have different formats with differing TTIs/CCs, as described in paras. [0085]-[0088])
receiving configuration information, wherein the configuration information is used for configuring a second bit of a second counter DAI in a second DCI format (paras. [0093]-[0095], [0098]-[0099], and [0164]-[0166]; and blocks 1005 and 1010 of Fig. 10 —a second bit value of an n-bit c-DAI associated with subsequent, second DCI can be 1 indicated as “01” —a bit value of 2 could be indicated as “10,” and a bit value of 3 could be indicated as “11” —the configuration information received is interpreted to be associated with the modulo/codebook configuration, i.e., 2^n, for the n-bit c-DAI field —the UE can use a corresponding demodulo operation on the other end —the second DCI’s format may have a different TTI, etc., from the first DCI’s format in accordance with the codebook (350 of Fig. 3), paras. [0086]-[0088]),
wherein the configuration information is configured by higher layer signaling (configuration of a codebook, DAI bit, etc., can be configured through higher-layer signaling, such as RRC signaling (paras. [0046], [0072], and [0085]);
wherein when the first bit and the second bit are different, an effective bit of the first bit and an effective bit of the second bit are the same, the effective bit is configured by a network device, the effective bit of the first bit and the effective bit of the second bit are a minimum of the first bit and the second bit (paras. [0005], [0020]-[0022], [0060], [0063]-[0064], [0076]-[0079], and [0109]; blocks 1005 and 1010 of Fig. 10, blocks 1105, 1110, and 1115 of Fig. 11, and blocks 1205, 1210, and 1215 of Fig. 12 —cDAI can be received for multiple transmitted DCI having different formats, where a first c-DAI field has a first bit size that is different from a second c-DAI field bit size, prohibiting use of the same reverse modulo operation/HARQ codebook —a minimum bit size between the first c-DAI and second c_DAI can be determined (resulting in a same effective bit), and applied to the first bit or the second bit (depending on which has the smallest c-DAI bit size) of a second c-DAI to allow use of the same reverse modulo operation/HARQ codebook for reception/feedback).
However, Khoshnevisan does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first bit of the first counter DAI is agreed in a protocol, and a number of the first bit is larger than 1.;
Yang does teach:
wherein a first bit of the first counter DAI is agreed in a protocol, and a number of the first bit is larger than 1. (paras. [0046], [0063]-[0065], [0114] and [0119] —bits of a cDAI can be designated by a communication protocol, i.e., LTE/NR standard at para. [0119], as opposed to requiring RRC configuration signaling, where a corresponding first bit of a cDAI for designated DCI format 1_2 is determined by a UE (an equivalence “known beforehand”) as being equal to two (2 > 1) per the relevant communication standard).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Khoshnevisan’s determination of a first bit of a first counter DAI of a first DCI format, with that of a protocol-designated first bit cDAI value, as taught by Yang.
The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce processing overhead by assigning the first bit of a cDAI to a protocol-designated value, as recognized by Yang (paras. [0046], [0063]-[0065], [0114] and [0119]).
Khoshnevisan and Yang do not explicitly teach:
bits other than the second bit of the second counter DAI are used for indicating other information other than the second counter DAI, wherein the other information comprises open-loop power information.
Papasakellariou does teach:
bits other than a first bit of a first counter DAI can be used for indicating other information other than the second counter DAI, wherein the other information comprises open-loop power information (paras. [0077]-[0078]; and Table 2 —when a PUSCH transmission is scheduled by a PDCCH, transmit power control (TPC) including open-loop power control (OLPC) information, can be indicated via a cDAI bit field designating a particular DCI format type, i.e., DCI format 3 (w/two-bit power adjust) or DCI format 3A (w/single-bit power adjust).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Khoshnevisan in view of Yang’s first counter DAI indicating a particular DCI format to also indicate other information related to HARQ feedback, such as TCP/OLPC information, as taught by Papasakellariou.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve DCI/DAI signaling usefulness by allowing a second cDAI bit to indicate TCP/OLPC information, as recognized by Papasakellariou (paras. [0077]-[0078]; and Table 2).
With respect to claim 3, Khoshnevisan in view of Yang and Papasakellariou teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein when the first bit is the same as the second bit (Khoshnevisan: paras. [0021]-[0022], [0064], [0073], and [0113] —an effective bit/value of the first and second c-DAI can be the same, in which case a same codebook can be applied), a Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request Acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) for Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) reception or semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) release, scheduled by the first DCI format, a HARQ-ACK for PDSCH reception or SPS release, scheduled by the second DCI format, are fed back in a same HARQ-ACK codebook (Khoshnevisan: paras. [0087]-[0088], [0098]-[0100], and [0164]-[0167]; HARQ (ACK/NACK) feedback 315 of Fig. 3, and blocks 1010 and 1015 of Fig. 10 —the c-DAI bit value of 0 for a first DCI, i.e., indicated as “00,” and the c-DAI bit value of 1 for the subsequent, second DCI, i.e., indicated as “01,” correspond to the same HARQ-ACK UL feedback (relating to a successful PDSCH DL reception(s)) opportunity and are fed back as part of the same codebook 350 —after running the 2^n demodulo operation on the DAI, the UE can determine the resources to feed back, as a combined HARQ-ACK UL feedback to the BS).
With respect to claim 7, Khoshnevisan in view of Yang and Papasakellariou teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Khoshnevisan does not explicitly teach:
the HARQ-ACK codebook being a type 2 HARQ-ACK codebook.
Yang does teach:
a HARQ-ACK codebook associated with c-DAI being a type 2 “dynamic” HARQ-ACK codebook (paras. [0005], [0062], [0064], [0113], [0119]-[0120], and [0124]).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Khoshnevisan HARQ-ACK codebook configuration, such that the type of codebook was type 2, as taught by Yang.
The motivation for doing so would have been to designate the codebook type to be dynamic (type 2), as opposed to semi-static (type 1), as recognized by Yang (paras. [0005], [0062], [0064], [0113], [0119]-[0120], and [0124]).
With respect to claim 9, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 9 is directed to a configuration information receiving device comprising a processor and a transceiver (Khoshnevisan: UE 115/905 represented in Figs. 1/9 w/processor 940 and transceiver 920 for receiving/transmitting). As such, claim 9 is likewise rejected under §103, based on Khoshnevisan in view of Yang and Papasakellariou, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 11, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 3. As such, claim 11 is likewise rejected under §103, based on Khoshnevisan in view of Yang and Papasakellariou, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 3.
With respect to claim 14, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 7. As such, claim 14 is likewise rejected under §103, based on Khoshnevisan in view of Yang and Papasakellariou for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 7/14.
With respect to claim 15, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1/9, except claim 15 is directed to a configuration information sending device comprising a processor and a transceiver (Khoshnevisan: BS 105/905 represented in Figs. 1/9 w/processor 940 and transceiver 920 for transmitting/receiving). As such, claim 15 is likewise rejected under §103, based on Khoshnevisan in view of Yang and Papasakellariou, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1/9.
With respect to claim 17, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 3/11. As such, claim 17 is likewise rejected under §103, based on Khoshnevisan in view of Yang and Papasakellariou, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 3/11.
With respect to claim 20, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 7/14. As such, claim 20 is likewise rejected under §103, based on Khoshnevisan in view of Yang and Papasakellariou for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 7/14.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan in view of Yang and Papasakellariou, in further view of US PG Pub. 2022/0015124 A1, Shen et al. (hereinafter “Shen”).
With respect to claim 6, Khoshnevisan in view of Yang and Papasakellariou teaches the method of claim 5.
However, Khoshnevisan in view of Yang and Papasakellariou do not teach:
wherein the other information further comprises priority information.
Shen does teach:
wherein the other information further comprises priority information
(paras. [0062]-[0064], [0071], [0074]-[0075] and [0101] —other cDAI bits can indicate other information corresponding to different service types/priorities, i.e., for URLLC and/or eMMB service types, etc., having different designated priorities and intrinsic latency requirements. —Applicant’s disclosure also describes its “other information” relating to priority information, including service priority, at p. 12, last line, through p. 13, line 5).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Khoshnevisan in view of Yang and Papasakellariou’s c-DAI such that the non-effective bit includes priority information, as taught by Shen.
The motivation for doing so would have been to designate other information in a second, non-effective bit of a c-DAI to include priority information relating to service/data type, as recognized by Shen (paras. [0062]-[0064], [0071], [0074]-[0075] and [0101]).
With respect to claim 13, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 6. As such, claim 13 is likewise rejected under §103, based on Khoshnevisan in view of Yang, Papasakellariou, and Shen for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 6.
With respect to claim 19, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 6/13. As such, claim 19 is likewise rejected under §103, based on Khoshnevisan in view of Yang, Papasakellariou, and Shen, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 6/13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-6pm 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, Moo Jeong can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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.
/Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/DADY CHERY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights