DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed on: 01/08/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9, 11, 13-15, 17, and 19-20 are pending for Examination.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 11, 15, and 17 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 01/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are determined not to be persuasive.
For context, Applicant cites support for its amended claim subject matter to be in paras. [0068], [0073]-[0074], [0076], and [0078] of its original disclosure, as cited in the corresponding PG Pub, and reproduced below. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 6.
PNG
media_image1.png
38
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
186
405
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
277
339
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The above citations, when read in context, including para. [0077], describe scheduling PDSCH 1 with DCI having DCI format 1_1 where a first cDAI = 2 bits, and scheduling PDSCH 2 with another DCI having a different DCI format 1_2 where a second cDAI = 1bit. Here, the first cDAI bit = 2, and the second cDAI bit = 1, which are different. In this scenario, a minimum cDAI bit = 1, as 1 < 2; thus, an effective bit, being a minimum cDAI bit, would be equal to 1. The purpose of using a minimum cDAI effective bit for differing DCI formats is to enable use of the same HARQ feedback codebook for either PDSCH reception or SPS release communications, as described in para. [0007] of Applicant’s PG Pub.
Applicant’s disclosure, at paras. [0078]-[0079], also describes that “optionally, bits other than the effective bit in the first bit of the first counter DAI are used for indicating other information including priority information or open-loop power information.” However, when a cDAI only has 1-bit, as opposed to 2-bits, there are no other bits with which to indicate “other information, such as for DCI format 1_2 in the above example.
With respect to claims 1, 9, and 15, Applicant argues that Khoshnevisan fails to teach/suggest the claim feature where “the first bit of the first counter DAI is agreed in a protocol.” Applicant’s Remarks at p. 8. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that for different DCI formats, i.e., formats 1_2 or 1_1, as described above, a bit or number of bits in a corresponding cDAI is standardized, making it “agreed in a protocol.” Regardless, in the Office Action Zeng, as opposed to Khoshnevisan, is relied upon to teach/suggest this contested limitation. In this regard, Zeng describes that a bit value of a first cDAI can be designated by a communication protocol, i.e., LTE/NR protocol, corresponding a first bit of a two-bit value where a first bit is set according to a protocol DCI format, i.e., DCI format 1_0, DCI format 1_1, etc. (col. 4, lines 45-65 and col. 10, lines 30-41). Accordingly, Applicant has argued against the wrong reference, i.e., Khoshnevisan, relied upon in the Office Action to teach the claim subject matter at issue.
Applicant also argues that Khoshnevisan fails to teach/suggest the claim feature “wherein configuration information is configured with high layer signaling.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. This subject matter was previously presented in cancelled claim 8. In the last Office Action Khoshnevisan was described to teach/suggest that configuration of a codebook, DAI bit, etc., can be configured through higher-layer signaling, such as RRC signaling (paras. [0046], [0072], and [0085]). This teaching in Khoshnevisan fairly reads on the claim subject matter at issue. Notably, Zeng also teaches configuration information being configured through higher layer signaling, i.e., RRC signaling, at col. 8, lines 7-11, and Papasakellariou teaches the same, at paras. [0099] and [0108].
Applicant then summarizes portions of Khoshnevisan, without citation, Id. at p. 8, and states: “[h]owever, in the present invention, 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 configured by the network device, and the effective bit of the first and the effective bit of the second bit are a minimum of the first bit and the second bit; bits other than the effective bit in 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.” Id. at p. 9 (underlining omitted). Applicant then summarily concludes that: “[t]hus, Khoshnevisan does not disclose the above-recited features of independent claim 1,” without providing any further explanation or supporting rationale.
With respect to the contested claim limitation, “bits other than the effective bit in 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,” the Examiner notes that Papasakellariou, as opposed to Khoshnevisan, was reasonably relied upon in the Office Action to teach/suggest this claim feature, at paras. [0077]-[0078], and in Table 2 (See the corresponding claim mapping in the rejection of claim 1, below). Accordingly, Applicant has argued against the wrong reference for this limitation, i.e., Khoshnevisan as opposed to Papasakellariou.
With respect to the remainder of the amended claim subject matter indicated as allegedly not being taught by Khoshnevisan, without further explanation/rationale, Applicant is referred to the claim rejection(s) of independent claims 1, 9, and 15, below. In this regard, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references, namely Khoshnevisan. Merely underlining claim language is insufficient.
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.
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, 9, 11, 15, and 17 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 Patent 12,323,992 B2, Zeng et al. (hereinafter “Zeng”), 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;
Zeng does teach:
wherein a first bit of the first counter DAI is agreed in a protocol (col. 4, lines 45-65 and col. 10, lines 30-41 —a bit value of a first cDAI can be designated by a communication protocol, i.e., LTE/NR protocol, corresponding a first bit of a two-bit value where a first bit is set according to a protocol DCI format, i.e., DCI format 1_0, DCI format 1_1, etc.);
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 Zeng.
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 Zeng (col. 4, lines 45-65 and col. 10, lines 30-41).
Khoshnevisan and Zeng 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 second bit of a second 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 —the Examiner notes that the phrase: “bits other than a second bit of a second counter DAI,” can be reasonably interpreted to be any bit indication, excluding only the second bit of a second cDAI —what/where are the other bits? are they intended to be from the configuration information/DCI (not part of cDAIs), the first cDAI, the second cDAI (a first bit of the second cDAI)? Further clarification would be appreciated).
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 Zeng’s second 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 Zeng 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 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 Zeng 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 Zeng and Papasakellariou, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 3.
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 Zeng 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 Zeng and Papasakellariou, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 3/11.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan in view of Zeng and Papasakellariou, in further view of US Patent No. 11,490,406 B2, Choi et al. (hereinafter “Choi”).
With respect to claim 7, Khoshnevisan in view of Zeng and Papasakellariou teaches the method of claim 1, including the HARQ-ACK codebook.
Khoshnevisan in view of Zeng and Papasakellariou does not explicitly teach:
the HARQ-ACK codebook being a type 2 HARQ-ACK codebook.
Choi does teach:
a HARQ-ACK codebook associated with c-DAI being a type 2 “dynamic” HARQ-ACK codebook (col. 22, ln. 41, to col. 23, ln. 58, and col. 49, lines 49-57 —a type of HARQ-ACK codebook configured by the BS may be type 2).
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 Zeng and Papasakellariou’s HARQ-ACK codebook configuration, such that the type of codebook was type 2, as taught by Choi.
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 Choi (col. 22, ln. 41, to col. 23, ln. 58, and col. 49, lines 49-57).
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 Zeng, Papasakellariou, and Choi, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 7/14.
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 Zeng, Papasakellariou, and Choi, 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 Zeng 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 Zeng and Papasakellariou teaches the method of claim 5.
However, Khoshnevisan in view of Zeng 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 Zeng 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 Zeng, 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 Zeng, Papasakellariou, and Shen, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 6/13.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights