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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/29/2025 and 10/15/2025 has been entered and made of record.
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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 22, 26, 30 and 32 are amended.
No new claims is/are added.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 11-14, 22 and 25-34 are pending for examination.
Applicant Argument
Re: Claim Objection
Applicant’s Remarks (remark page 8), filed on 10/15/2025, regarding claim objections have been considered and the claims have been amended. The objections to claim have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Re: Claim Rejections
Applicant’s arguments (remark pages 9-11), filed on 10/15/2025, with respect to claims 1, 4-6, 8, 11-14, 22 and 25-34 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection below which better address the claimed invention as amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8, 11-12, 22, 25-26 and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US 20220400506 A1), hereinafter “Yang”.
Per claim 1, 8, 22 and 30:
Regarding claim 8, Yang teaches ‘A remote unit for wireless communication’ (Yang: [FIG.4]; [0107]: “UE (user equipment)”; [0060]: “wireless communication system”); ‘comprising: one or more memories’ (Yang: [FIG.4]: “UE MEMORY MODULE”); ‘one or more processors’ (Yang: [FIG.4]: “UE PROCESSOR MODULE”); ‘coupled with the one or more memories’ (Yang: [0112]: “memory modules 416 and 434 may be coupled to the processor modules”); ‘individually or collectively operable to cause the remote unit to’ (this is implied);
‘receive a control signal in a first time slot’ (Yang: [FIG.14]: block 1402: UE would receive control signal in a control slot; [FIG.5]: “MPDCCH”: “M0”, control signal on slot “0”);
‘wherein, when the control signal includes a scheduling delay field that indicates both a first time delay and a second time delay for fourteen hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) process numbers, the first time delay is a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) delay and the second time delay is a HARQ-ACK delay’ (Yang: [0008]: “the control signal includes a field configured to indicate the combination of the physical PDSCH scheduling delays and the HARQ-ACK delay; [0120]: “the indication scheme that supports 14 HARQ processes as PDSCH scheduling delay and HARQ-ACK delay”; [FIG.11]: “PDSCH Scheduling Delay” : “HARQ-ACK Feedback Delay” => “2” : “11”; [0142]: “the BS 302 may indicate the scheduling delay of the PDSCH and/or the feedback delay of the corresponding HARQ-ACK through the first control domain in the downlink control information”);
‘receive a data signal in a second time slot’ (Yang: [FIG.14]: block 1404: UE would receive data signal over PDSCH in a DL data slot; [FIG.5]: “PDSCH”: “D0”, data on slot “2”);
‘wherein the second time slot is equal to the first time slot plus the first time delay’ (Yang: [FIG.11]: “PDSCH Scheduling Delay”: “2”; [FIG.5]: slot “D0” =2 = 0 + 2 = slot “M0” + “PDSCH Scheduling Delay”);
‘transmit a feedback of the data signal in a third time slot’ (Yang: [FIG.14]: block: 1406: UE would transmit a HARQ-ACK feedback in a UL slot; [FIG.5]: “PUCCH”: “A0”, HARQ-ACK feedback on slot “13”);
‘wherein the third time slot is determined based on the second time delay’ (Yang: [FIG.11]: [FIG.11]: “HARQ-ACK Feedback Delay”: “11”; [FIG.5]: slot “A0” = 13 = 2 + 11 = slot “D0” + “HARQ-ACK Feedback Delay”).
Regarding claim 22, Yang teaches ‘A base unit for wireless communication’ (Yang: [FIG.4]; [0107]: “a base station”; [0060]: “wireless communication system”); ‘comprising: one or more memories’ (Yang: [FIG.4]: “BS MEMORY MODULE”); ‘one or more processors’ (Yang: [FIG.4]: “BS PROCESSOR MODULE”); ‘coupled with the one or more memories’ (Yang: [0112]: “memory modules 416 and 434 may be coupled to the processor modules”); ‘individually or collectively operable to cause the base unit to’ (this is implied);
‘transmit a control signal in a first time slot’ (Yang: [FIG.14]: block 1402: Base Station would transmit control signal in a control slot; [FIG.5]: “MPDCCH”: “M0”, control signal on slot “0”);
‘wherein, when the control signal includes a scheduling delay field that indicates both a first time delay and a second time delay for fourteen hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) process numbers, the first time delay is a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) delay and the second time delay is a HARQ-ACK delay’ (Yang: [0008]: “the control signal includes a field configured to indicate the combination of the physical PDSCH scheduling delays and the HARQ-ACK delay”; [0120]: “the indication scheme that supports 14 HARQ processes as PDSCH scheduling delay and HARQ-ACK delay”; [FIG.11]: “PDSCH Scheduling Delay” : “HARQ-ACK Feedback Delay” => “2” : “11”; [0142]: “the BS 302 may indicate the scheduling delay of the PDSCH and/or the feedback delay of the corresponding HARQ-ACK through the first control domain in the downlink control information”);
‘transmit a data signal in a second time slot’ (Yang: [FIG.14]: block 1404: base station would transmit data signal over PDSCH in a DL data slot; [FIG.5]: “PDSCH”: “D0”, data on slot “2”);
‘wherein the second time slot is equal to the first time slot plus the first time delay’ (Yang: [FIG.11]: “PDSCH Scheduling Delay”: “2”; [FIG.5]: slot “D0” =2 = 0 + 2 = slot “M0” + “PDSCH Scheduling Delay”);
‘receive a feedback of the data signal in a third time slot’ (Yang: [FIG.14]: block: 1406: Base Station would receive a HARQ-ACK feedback in a UL slot; [FIG.5]: “PUCCH”: “A0”, HARQ-ACK feedback on slot “13”);
‘wherein the third time slot is determined based on the second time delay’ (Yang: [FIG.11]: [FIG.11]: “HARQ-ACK Feedback Delay”: “11”; [FIG.5]: slot “A0” = 13 = 2 + 11 = slot “D0” + “HARQ-ACK Feedback Delay”).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the method implemented by the remote unit of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above).
Regarding claim 30, claim 30 recites the method implemented by the base unit of claim 22 (see rejection of claim 22 above).
Per claim 4, 11, 25 and 31:
Regarding claim 11, Yang teaches the remote unit of claim 8 (discussed above).
Yang teaches ‘wherein the second time slot is two time slots after the first time slot except at least one scheduled uplink time slot and at least one uplink-downlink switching time slot’ (Yang: [FIG.5]: D0 = M0 + 2; [FIG.7]: “Scheduling delay for PDSCH”; [0097]: “the downlink (DL) needs to support 14 HARQ processes”, with 14 HARQ processes, D17 = M10 + 7, where 7 = 2 + 2 + 3, except the two switching time slots and 3 scheduled UL time slots).
Regarding claim 25, Yang teaches the base unit of claim 22 (discussed above).
Yang teaches ‘wherein the second time slot is two time slots after the first time slot except at least one scheduled uplink time slot and at least one uplink-downlink switching time slot’ (Yang: [FIG.5]: D0 = M0 + 2; [FIG.7]: “Scheduling delay for PDSCH”; [0097]: “the downlink (DL) needs to support 14 HARQ processes”, with 14 HARQ processes, D17 = M10 + 7, where 7 = 2 +2 + 3, except the two switching time slots and 3 scheduled UL time slots).
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites the method implemented by the remote unit of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above).
Regarding claim 31, claim 31 recites the method implemented by the base unit of claim 25 (see rejection of claim 25 above).
Per claim 5, 12, 26 and 32:
Regarding claim 12, Yang teaches the remote unit of claim 8 (discussed above).
Yang teaches ‘wherein the first time delay is two time slots or seven time slots’ (Yang: [FIG.7]: “Scheduling delay for PDSCH”: “2”, “7”), ‘which is determined by a presence or non-presence of at least one time slot between the first time slot plus at least one time slot and a first scheduled uplink time slot minus at least one time slot’ (Yang: [FIG.5]: for one time slot: 1: Di = Mi + 2 for i=0…9: (0+1, 13-1) = (1, 12) => presence (slot 2-11) … (9+1, 13-1)=(10, 12) => presence (slot 11); [0097]: “the downlink (DL) needs to support 14 HARQ processes”, with 14 HARQ processes, D17 = M10 + 7,where 7 = (2 + 2 switching slots + 3 UL slots): (10+1, 13-1) = (11, 12), non-presence), D18 = M11 +7: (11+1, 13-1) = (12, 12) non-presence).
Regarding claim 26, Yang teaches the base unit of claim 22 (discussed above).
Yang teaches ‘wherein the first time delay is two time slots or seven time slots’ (Yang: [FIG.7]: “Scheduling delay for PDSCH”: “2”, “7”);
‘which is determined by a presence or non-presence of at least one time slot between the first time slot plus at least one time slot and a first scheduled uplink time slot minus at least one time slot’ (Yang: [FIG.5]: for one time slots: Di = Mi + 2 for i=0…9: (0+1, 13-1) = (1, 12) => presence (slot 2-11) … (9+1, 13-1)=(10, 12) => presence (slot 11); [0097]: “the downlink (DL) needs to support 14 HARQ processes”, with 14 HARQ processes, D17 = M10 + 7,where 7 = (2 + 2 switching slots + 3 UL slots): (10+1, 13-1) = (11, 12), non-presence, D18 = M11 +7: (11+1, 13-1) = (12, 12) non-presence).
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites the method implemented by the remote unit of claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above).
Regarding claim 32, claim 32 recites the method implemented by the base unit of claim 26 (see rejection of claim 26 above).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6, 13-14, 27-29 and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, in view of Park et al. (US 20180049176 A1), hereinafter “Park”.
Per claim 6, 13, 27 and 33:
Regarding claim 13, Yang teaches the remote unit of claim 8 (discussed above).
Yang teaches ‘the first time delay is determined by a radio network temporary identity (RNTI) value corresponding to the control signal’ (Yang: [0012]: “the control signal includes a HARQ process field and a HARQ-ACK delay field configured to collectively indicate a combination of the HARQ process number, the PDSCH scheduling delay, and/or the HARQ-ACK delay”). However, Yang fails to expressly teach a RNTI value.
Park in the same field of endeavor teaches ‘a RNTI value’ (Park: [0130]: “the UE is configured to decode MPDCCH with CRC scrambled by the C-RNT”; [0094]: “format 6-1A CRC is scrambled with C-RNTI”; [0093]: “DCI format 6-1A is used for the compact scheduling of one PDSCH codeword”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Park’s teaching with that of Yang for UE to determine the first time delay by a RNTI value corresponding to the control signal in order to support compact scheduling of PDSCH (see reference quotes in element above).
Regarding claim 27, Yang teaches the base unit of claim 22 (discussed above).
Yang teaches ‘the first time delay is determined by a radio network temporary identity (RNTI) value corresponding to the control signal’ (Yang: [0012]: “the control signal includes a HARQ process field and a HARQ-ACK delay field configured to collectively indicate a combination of the HARQ process number, the PDSCH scheduling delay, and/or the HARQ-ACK delay”). However, Yang fails to expressly teach a RNTI value.
Park teaches ‘a RNTI value’ (Park: [0130]: “the UE is configured to decode MPDCCH with CRC scrambled by the C-RNT”; [0094]: “format 6-1A CRC is scrambled with C-RNTI”; [0093]: “DCI format 6-1A is used for the compact scheduling of one PDSCH codeword”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Park’s teaching with that of Yang for base station to determine the first time delay by a RNTI value corresponding to the control signal in order to support compact scheduling of PDSCH (see reference quotes in element above).
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites the method implemented by the remote unit of claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above).
Regarding claim 33, claim 33 recites the method implemented by the base unit of claim 27 (see rejection of claim 27 above).
Per claim 14, 28, 29 and 34:
Regarding claim 14, Yang teaches the remote unit of claim 9 (discussed above).
Yang teaches ‘the first time delay is determined by a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) mask corresponding to the control signal’ (Yang: [0012]: “the control signal includes a HARQ process field and a HARQ-ACK delay field configured to collectively indicate a combination of the HARQ process number, the PDSCH scheduling delay, and/or the HARQ-ACK delay”). However, Yang fails to expressly teach a CRC mask.
Park teaches ‘a CRC mask’ (Park: [0130]: “the UE is configured to decode MPDCCH with CRC scrambled by the C-RNT”; [0094]: “format 6-1A CRC is scrambled with C-RNTI”; [0093]: “DCI format 6-1A is used for the compact scheduling of one PDSCH codeword”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Park’s teaching with that of Yang for UE to determine the first time delay by a CRC mask corresponding to the control signal in order to support compact scheduling of PDSCH (see reference quotes in element above).
Regarding claim 28, Yang teaches the base unit of claim 23 (discussed above).
Yang teaches ‘the first time delay is determined by a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) mask corresponding to the control signal’ (Yang: [0012]: “the control signal includes a HARQ process field and a HARQ-ACK delay field configured to collectively indicate a combination of the HARQ process number, the PDSCH scheduling delay, and/or the HARQ-ACK delay”). However, Yang fails to expressly teach a CRC mask.
Park teaches ‘a CRC mask’ (Park: [0130]: “the UE is configured to decode MPDCCH with CRC scrambled by the C-RNT”; [0094]: “format 6-1A CRC is scrambled with C-RNTI”; [0093]: “DCI format 6-1A is used for the compact scheduling of one PDSCH codeword”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Park’s teaching with that of Yang for base station to determine the first time delay by a CRC mask corresponding to the control signal in order to support compact scheduling of PDSCH (see reference quotes in element above).
Regarding claim 29, claim 29 recites the method implemented by the remote unit of claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above).
Regarding claim 34, claim 34 recites the method implemented by the base unit of claim 28 (see rejection of claim 28 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUOXING FAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571)272-3927. 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.
/G.F./
Examiner, Art Unit 2462
/YEMANE MESFIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2462