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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GR 20200100465, filed on 08/27/2020 and GS 20200100466, filed on 08/07/2020.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (EP 2549820 B1), hereinafter Ahn in view of Seo et al (2015/0195072), hereinafter Seo.
Re. Claim 1, Ahn teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory (Fig. 17, 120) and configured to: receive, from a base station, a semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) reactivation downlink control information (DCl) (Fig. 6, & Pg. 8, Line 4 - a base station 110 transmits SPS PDCCH indicating SPS activation to a user equipment); receive, from the base station, a SPS reactivation DCI (Fig. 6, Pg. 4, Line 22 - Control information transmitted on PDCCH is called DCI (downlink control information) & Pg. 8, Line 4 - a base station 110 transmits SPS PDCCH indicating SPS activation to a user equipment); and transmit, to the base station, a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback separately indicating reception of the first SPS reactivation DCI and reception of the second SPS reactivation DCI (Fig. 6, & Pg. 8, Line 11 - the user equipment 120 performs a retransmission via the resource reserved for the HARQ retransmission. Examiner interprets that the HARQ selection process can be replicated for subsequent SPS reactivation DCI).
Yet, Ahn does not expressly teach a first semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) DCI and a second SPS DCI.
However, Seo does explicitly teach a first semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) DCI and a second SPS DCI (¶0195 - A plurality of SPSs may be permitted in the downlink data to be acknowledged/non-acknowledged).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Seo to the teaching of Ahn. The motivation for such would be as Seo provides a first and second SPS DCI that can be used simultaneously (¶0195, Seo). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claim 8, Ahn and Seo teach Claim 1.
However, Ahn does not expressly teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive a first SPS release for a first SPS prior to receiving the first SPS reactivation DCI and receive a second SPS release for a second SPS prior to receiving the first SPS reactivation DCI.
Yet, Seo explicitly teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive a first SPS release for a first SPS prior to receiving the first SPS reactivation DCI (¶0099 - although an SPS is allocated through RRC signaling, when SPS transmission/reception are not performed but the activation or release signal is received through the PDCCH, frequency resource (resource block) according to a resource block allocation designated in the PDCCH and modulation and a coding rate according to MCS information are applied so that SPS transmission/reception are performed in a subframe corresponding to a subframe period and an offset value allocated through RRC signaling); and receive a second SPS release for a second SPS prior to receiving the first SPS reactivation DCI (¶0099 - although an SPS is allocated through RRC signaling, when SPS transmission/reception are not performed but the activation or release signal is received through the PDCCH, frequency resource (resource block) according to a resource block allocation designated in the PDCCH and modulation and a coding rate according to MCS information are applied so that SPS transmission/reception are performed in a subframe corresponding to a subframe period and an offset value allocated through RRC signaling).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Seo to the teaching of Ahn. The motivation for such would be as Seo provides that the SPS release happens before receiving SPS reactivation DCI (¶0099, Seo). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claim 9, Ahn teaches an apparatus of wireless communication at a base station, comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory (Fig. 17, 110) and configured to: transmit, to a UE, a semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) reactivation downlink control information (DCI) (Fig. 6, & Pg. 8, Line 4 - a base station 110 transmits SPS PDCCH indicating SPS activation to a user equipment); transmit, to the UE, a SPS reactivation DCI (Fig. 6, & Pg. 8, Line 4 - a base station 110 transmits SPS PDCCH indicating SPS activation to a user equipment); and receive, from the UE, a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback separately indicating detection of the first SP S reactivation DCI and the second SPS reactivation DCI (Fig. 6 & Pg. 8, Line 11 - the user equipment 120 performs a retransmission via the resource reserved for the HARQ retransmission. Examiner interprets that the HARQ selection process can be replicated for subsequent SPS reactivation DCI).
Yet, Ahn does not expressly teach a first semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) DCI and a second SPS DCI.
However, Seo does explicitly teach a first semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) DCI and a second SPS DCI (¶0195 - A plurality of SPSs may be permitted in the downlink data to be acknowledged/non-acknowledged).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Seo to the teaching of Ahn. The motivation for such would be as Seo provides a first and second SPS DCI that can be used simultaneously (¶0195, Seo). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Claims 2-5, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn in view of Seo and Zhou et al. (2021/0352580), hereinafter Zhou.
Re. Claims 2 and 11, Ahn and Seo teach Claims 1 and 9.
Yet, Ahn and Seo do not expressly teach wherein the first SPS reactivation DCI or the second SPS reactivation DCI modifies one or more physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) parameters comprising a PUCCH resource indicator (PRI).
However, Zhou explicitly teaches wherein the first SPS reactivation DCI or the second SPS reactivation DCI modifies one or more physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) parameters comprising a PUCCH resource indicator (PRI) (¶0221 - The UE may determine the PUCCH resource based on a PUCCH resource indicator in a DCI).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Zhou to the teaching of Ahn and Seo. The motivation for such would be as Zhou provides a means by which a PUCCH can be modified by a PRI provided in a DCI (¶0221, Zhou). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claims 3 and 12, Ahn and Seo teach Claims 1 and 9.
Ahn further teaches wherein the HARQ feedback comprises a first indication indicating reception of the first SPS reactivation DCI and a second indication indicating reception of the second SPS reactivation DCI (Pg. 7, Line 5 - in case that asynchronous adaptive HARQ is applied, since a retransmission time is not promised in-between, a base station should send a retransmission request message to a user equipment. Examiner interprets that the request message serves as a flag that can indicate when the DCI is received and that the process can be repeated for the first and second indications).
Re. Claims 4, 10 and 13-15, Ahn, Seo, and Zhou teach Claims 3 and 12.
Additionally, Ahn further teaches wherein the HARQ feedback further comprises a third indication indicating whether a first SPS physical data shared channel (PDSCH) associated with the first SPS reactivation DCI was received (Pg. 7, Line 5 - in case that asynchronous adaptive HARQ is applied, since a retransmission time is not promised in-between, a base station should send a retransmission request message to a user equipment. Examiner interprets that the request message serves as a flag that can indicate when the SPS PDSCH is received) and a second set of symbols indicating whether a second SPS PDSCH associated with the second SPS reactivation DCI was received (Pg. 7, Line 5 - in case that asynchronous adaptive HARQ is applied, since a retransmission time is not promised in-between, a base station should send a retransmission request message to a user equipment. Examiner interprets that the request message serves as a flag that can indicate when the DCI is received. Examiner interprets that the process provided for the “first” process previously can be easily replicated for this “second” process.).
Yet, Ahn and Zhou do not expressly teach wherein a downlink assignment index (DAI) for one or more SPS physical data shared channels (PDSCHs) is also for the first SPS reactivation DCI and the second SPS reactivation DCI, and wherein the DAI is included in the first SPS reactivation DCI or the second SPS reactivation DCI.
However, Seo explicitly teaches wherein a downlink assignment index (DAI) for one or more SPS physical data shared channels (PDSCHs) is also for the first SPS reactivation DCI and the second SPS reactivation DCI (¶0159 - A downlink assignment index (DAI) is included in a DL grant on the PDCCH in order to resolve the error. The DAI indicates the number of accumulated PDCCHs that transmit the assigned PDSCH), and wherein the DAI is included in the first SPS reactivation DCI or the second SPS reactivation DCI (¶0159 - A downlink assignment index (DAI) is included in a DL grant on the PDCCH in order to resolve the error. The DAI indicates the number of accumulated PDCCHs that transmit the assigned PDSCH).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Seo to the teaching of Ahn, and Zhou. The motivation for such would be as Seo provides the DCI may contain a downlink assignment index (¶0159, Seo). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claims 5, Ahn, Seo, and Zhou teach Claim 4.
Yet, Ahn and Zhou do not expressly teach wherein the DAI comprises a number of bits corresponding to a number of SPS configuration.
However, Seo explicitly teaches wherein the DAI comprises a number of bits corresponding to a number of SPS configuration (¶0159 - A 2-bit DAI value sequentially increases from 1 to be applied with a modulo-4 calculation again from DAI=4. For example, when M=5 and five DL subframes are all scheduled, DAI=1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 may be included in PDCCHs corresponding thereto in the order thereof).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Seo to the teaching of Ahn, and Zhou. The motivation for such would be as Seo provides the DAI may contain a number of bits corresponding to SPS configurations (¶0159, Seo). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn in view of Seo and You et al. (WO 2018/030766 A1), hereinafter You.
Re. Claims 6 and 16, Ahn and Seo teach Claims 1 and 9.
Yet, Ahn and Seo do not expressly teach wherein the first SPS reactivation DCI or the second SPS reactivation DCI includes a field of type SPS configuration index.
However, You explicitly teaches wherein the first SPS reactivation DCI or the second SPS reactivation DCI includes a field of type SPS configuration index (Pg. 27, Line 24 - A SPS configuration index or a narrowband index may be included in the DCI indicating SPS activation / deactivation to distinguish activation / deactivation for a plurality of SPS configurations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of You to the teaching of Ahn, and Seo. The motivation for such would be as You provides a field of type SPS configuration index within the reactivation DCI (Pg. 27, Line 24, You). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn in view of Seo and Sun et al. (2019/0045337), hereinafter Sun.
Re. Claim 7, Ahn and Seo teach Claims 1 and 9.
Yet, Ahn and Seo do not expressly teach wherein a first set of physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resources is associated with a first SPS and a second set of PUCCH resources is associated with a second SPS.
However, Sun explicitly teaches wherein a first set of physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resources is associated with a first SPS and a second set of PUCCH resources is associated with a second SPS (¶0158-0159 - The first indication information, the second indication information, or the third indication information in the foregoing procedure may be carried in any one of the following information to be reported to the base station, so that the base station learns that an SPS activation procedure, an SPS reactivation procedure, or an SPS deactivation procedure can be triggered… [indication information including] physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Sun to the teaching of Ahn, and Seo. The motivation for such would be as Sun 1 provides a multiple sets of PUUCH resources associated with respective SPS’s (¶0158-0159, Sun). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues against presently cited Ahn Pg. 8 Line 11 stating that it does not disclose “transmit, to the base station, a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback separately indicating reception of the first SPS reactivation DCI and reception-of the second SPS reactivation DCI”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument predicates itself on “NACK” and “ACK” in Ahn being exclusively for “UL Data” and not for “the reception of SPS reactivation DCI”, however this argument misunderstands the use of the HARQ in this reference. As cited on Pg. 8, Line 4, the process outlined in Fig. 6 begins with a base station sending a PDCCH indicating SPS activation (Pg. 4, Line 22 - Control information transmitted on PDCCH is called DCI (downlink control information)), this information is received by the UE, which in turn sends a signal back via a HARQ, acknowledging reception (ACK) or acknowledging reception failed (NACK). Applicant’s argument that the ACK and NACK of the reference points to UL Data is not per se incorrect, as the HARQ response is being transmitted from the UE to the base station, and thus is acting as a “uplink” signal, however this does not take away from the fact that this is a required element of the exchange and also is still in response to the SPS DCI being transmitted. Applicant in their argument has not provided an explanation of how transmitting a HARQ featuring ACK or NACK information fails to disclose the claimed limitation, rather argues that the presented references plainly fail to do so. Examiner provides his understanding of the references in this explanation both as illustrative of understanding and for clarification purposes.
Further, Applicant argues that Seo does not teach “a plurality of SPS processes”, which Examiner respectfully disagrees with. Examiner has provided ¶0195 (a plurality of SPSs may be permitted in the downlink data to be acknowledged/non-acknowledged, which is transmitted in one UL subframe or the plurality of DL subframes with the DL control channel) as illustrative that an individual having ordinary skill in the art could look at the provided citation from Ahn directed at an SPS and find obvious that a plurality of SPS’s are permitted to be used, such as a first and a second and claimed in the present case. Applicant presents ¶0149 in their argument as indicative that Seo teaches based on PDSCH, however, Applicant is reminded that for the purposes of an objection under obviousness, the combined references need not share an inventive crux in order to be associated with one another. Examiner’s intent by supplying Seo was not to illustrate anything other than showing a plurality of SPS processes can be used, as to not rely solely on the provided Examiner argument found in the rejection that a process for one SPS can be replicated for subsequent SPS’s as they may exist. In providing Seo, Examiner has shown that subsequent SPS’s can be found in the art and supported Ahn’s disclosure in a way that fully discloses the claim language. As such, per Examiner’s understanding above stated, Examiner upholds the rejection under 35 U.S.C § 103 for the independent claims 1 and 9 as well as all claims that depend therein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bagheri et al. (2019/0320396) - ¶0052-0056, ¶0100-0110
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 NOAH JAMES SUGDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7406. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00-6:00 ET, Fri 9:00-1:00 ET.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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.
/N.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475