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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/06/2026; the submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-4, filed 01/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 82, 84, 85, 86, 91, 94, and 95 under35 U.S.C. § 103 citing U.S. Patent No. 12,301,506 B2 to Park et al. ("Park") in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0182899 Al to Li et al. ("Li") have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US-20180295608-A1 to Nguyen et al., from hereon Nguyen.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-4, filed 1/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 87 and 88 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 citing Park in view of Li, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0053103 Al to Manolakos et al. ("Manolakos") have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US-20180295608-A1 to Nguyen et al., from hereon Nguyen.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-4, filed 01/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 89 and 90 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 citing Park in view of Li, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0036750 Al to Chen et al. ("Chen") have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view ofUS-20180295608-A1 to Nguyen et al., from hereon Nguyen.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-4, filed 01/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 92-93 and 90 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 citing Park in view of Li, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0159640 Al to Matsumura et al. ("Matsumura") have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view ofUS-20180295608-A1 to Nguyen et al., from hereon Nguyen.
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 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.
Claim(s) 82, 84-86, 91, 94, and 95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-12301506-B2 to Park et al., from hereon Park in view of US-20180295608-A1 to Nguyen et al., from hereon Nguyen.
Regarding claim 82 Park teaches…a method of operating a UE, comprising(Col, 21, Lns. 17-19 discloses the method for transmitting HARQ-ACK information when working on carrier aggregation with different structures in TDD): configuring two PUCCH groups(Col. 20, Lns. 53-57 discloses the configuration of two PUCCH groups such that the first group transmits PUCCH including UCI through PCELL and the second group transmits PUCCH on PSCELL, Fig. 5), wherein each PUCCH group comprises a plurality of cells, wherein the HARQ-ACK feedback relating to DL transmissions on the cells in the first PUCCH group is transmitted in the UL of the primary cell, PCell, of the first PUCCH group (Fig. 5, Col. 20, Lns. 60-63 further discloses… FIG. 5, PScell denoted by 514 is a cell in which PUCCH transmission/reception for downlink cells 506, 508, and 510 corresponding to PUCCH group 2 is performed ) and the HARQ-ACK feedback relating to DL transmissions on the cells in the second PUCCH group is transmitted in the UL of the primary second cell, PSCell, or on a PUCCH secondary cell, PUCCH-SCell, of the second PUCCH group(Fig. 5, Col 24, Lns. 50-55, discloses the FIG. 6, at operation 704 the UE may transmit the PUCCH including the HARQ-ACK information to the base station in a primary cell or a valid secondary cell); but does not teach…and receiving a configuration to switch the PUCCH carrier, within at least one of the PUCCH groups, on which the HARQ-ACK feedback is transmitted, wherein the UE is configured to dynamically switch the PUCCH carrier on which HARQ-ACK feedback is transmitted via an RRC parameter to enable dynamic PUCCH carrier switching.
Nguyen teaches… and receiving a configuration to switch the PUCCH carrier, within at least one of the PUCCH groups, on which the HARQ-ACK feedback is transmitted, wherein the UE is configured to dynamically switch the PUCCH carrier on which HARQ-ACK feedback is transmitted via an RRC parameter to enable dynamic PUCCH carrier switching (P.97, P. 99, and P. 111 discloses receiving configuration to switch PUCCH carrier when the UE is configured via RRC on which the HARQ-ACK feedback is transmitted).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Park by incorporating the teachings of Nguyen because the method and device configuration either through self-scheduling or cross-scheduling when in carrier aggregation (Nguyen, Abs). The motivation is that by applying a well-known standard or protocol or machine to a system provides the system with significantly improved industrial applicability.
Regarding claim 84 Park and Nguyen teach the method of Claim 82, Park teaches…wherein the RRC parameter to enable dynamic PUCCH carrier switching is applied to a HARQ-ACK codebook with a certain index/priority(P.117 discloses the determination of a cell index based on parameter via RRC parameter such as harq-ack codebook index etc ). .
Regarding claim 85 Park and Nguyen teach the method of Claim 82, Park teaches…wherein, if UE is configured with PUCCH resource configuration for more than one carrier in a PUCCH group, the UE is implicitly configured to dynamically switch the carrier on which HARQ-ACK feedback is transmitted(P.105 discloses. The UE configured is configured implicitly by higher layer signaling by the base station to operate in different modes. )
Regarding claim 86 Park and Nguyen teach the method of Claim 82, Park teaches…wherein the UE is configured with a separate PUCCH configuration defining the UL cell on which HARQ-ACK is to be transmitted for a plurality of cells of the PUCCH group (Fig. 5, P. 107 discloses… examples…the NR, two PUCCH groups are configured such that the first group transmits PUCCH including UCI information through Pcell and the second group transmits PUCCH including UCI information through PScell. FIG. 5 shows a related example. In FIG. 5, Pcell denoted by 512 is a cell in which PUCCH transmission/reception for downlink cells 500, 502, and 504 corresponding to PUCCH group 1 is performed. Also, in FIG. 5, PScell denoted by 514 is a cell in which PUCCH transmission/reception for downlink cells 506, 508, and 510 corresponding to PUCCH group 2 is performed).
Regarding claim 91 Park and Nguyen teach the method of Claim 82, Park teaches…wherein a set of applicable UL cells in the PUCCH group is configured in the UE that can be used to carry HARQ-ACK feedback corresponding to DL transmission in any DL cell in the PUCCH group(P.69 and P. 79 discloses the UE can be configured to send the target harq-ack feedback information).
Regarding claim 94 Park and Nguyen teach the method of Claim 82, Park teaches…wherein a DCI field is used to select the UL cell to use for HARQ-ACK feedback (P. 7, P. 12 discloses… transmitting, to the terminal, downlink control information (DCI) including resource allocation information of a plurality of physical downlink shared channels (PDSCHs) and information on a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resource for transmitting a hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgment (HARQ-ACK) for the plurality of PDSCHs; transmitting the plurality of PDSCHs related to the DCI;).
Regarding claim 95 Park and Nguyen teach the method of Claim 82, Park teaches…wherein the PUCCH carrier indication for HARQ-ACK feedback of semi-persistent scheduling, SPS, PDSCH is comprised in the activation DCI of each SPS configuration (P. 99).
Claim(s) 87 and 88 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-12301506-B2 to Park et al., from hereon Park and US-20180295608-A1 to Nguyen et al., from hereon Nguyen in view of US-20190053103-A1 to Manolakos et al., from hereon Manolakos.
Regarding claim 87 Park and Nguyen teach the method of Claim 82, but do not teach…wherein the UE is configured with a single PUCCH configuration defining the UL cell on which HARQ-ACK is to be transmitted that is applied to a plurality of UL cells of the PUCCH group.
Manolakos teaches… wherein the UE is configured with a single PUCCH configuration defining the UL cell on which HARQ-ACK is to be transmitted that is applied to a plurality of UL cells of the PUCCH group (P.145 discloses.. if the UE 1104 is configured with a single PUCCH group, then the UE 1104 may configure a single bandwidth part for downlink communications. As another example, if the UE 1104 is configured with multiple PUCCH groups (e.g., two PUCCH groups), then the UE 1104 may be configured with up to one bandwidth part, per PUCCH group, for downlink communications).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Park and Nguyen by incorporating the teachings of Manolakos because the method and device allow for various modes of configuration of the one or more bandwidth parts via signaling taking advantage of UE capabilities to supporting multiple control channels (Manolakos, Abs and P. 144). The motivation is that by applying a well-known standard or protocol or machine to a system provides the system with significantly improved industrial applicability.
Regarding claim 88 Park, Nguyen, Manolakos teach the method of Claim 87, wherein the PUCCH configuration is applied to UL cells in multiple PUCCH groups(P.145 discloses…the negotiation with the base station to determine the number of supported bandwidth parts supported for example… As another example, if the UE 1104 is configured with two PUCCHs (e.g., one on the primary CC and one on a primary secondary CC), then the UE 1104 may be configured two bandwidth parts for uplink communication (e.g., one on the primary CC and one on a primary secondary CC). In some aspects, the UE 1104 may signal a UE capability regarding a number of supported uplink control channels (e.g., single PUCCH, dual PUCCH, and/or the like), and may be instructed by and/or may negotiate with the base station 1102 to determine the number of bandwidth parts to be configured based at least in part on the UE capability ).
Claim(s) 89 and 90 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-12301506-B2 to Park et al., from hereon Park and US-20180295608-A1 to Nguyen et al., from hereon Nguyen in view of US-20210036750-A1 to Chen et al., from hereon Chen.
Claim(s) 92 and 93 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-12301506-B2 to Park et al., from hereon Park and US-20180295608-A1 to Nguyen et al., from hereon Nguyen in view of US-20220159640-A1 to Matsamura.
Regarding claim 92 Park and Nguyen teach the method of Claim 82, but do not teach…wherein the carrier in the PUCCH group on which HARQ-ACK feedback is transmitted is performed based on an indication in a PUCCH resource indicator field in a downlink control information, DCI.
Matsumura teaches… wherein the carrier in the PUCCH group on which HARQ-ACK feedback is transmitted is performed based on an indication in a PUCCH resource indicator field in a downlink control information, DCI(P. 102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Park and Nguyen by incorporating the teachings of Matsumura because the method and device allow for various modes of configuration of the downlink and uplink control message based on control information (Matsumura, Abs). The motivation is that by applying a well-known standard or protocol or machine to a system provides the system with significantly improved industrial applicability.
Regarding claim 93 Park, Nguyen, Matsumura teach the method of Claim 92, Matsumura teaches…wherein serving cell ID which identifies the UL cell on which HARQ-ACK feedback is transmitted is comprised in the PUCCH resource configuration of a Radio Resource Configuration message used to configure the UE to switch the PUCCH carrier on which the HARQ-ACK feedback is transmitted(Fig. 14, P. 102).
Allowable Subject Matter
24. Claims 96-100 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
25. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the main reason for objection of the claims under discussion is the inclusion of “timing constraint is imposed on the UE processing time when it operates with dynamic PUCCH carrier switching”, “an extra time offset, A, is added to Tproci when the UE is configured to operate with dynamic PUCCH carrier switching”, “the extra time offset is dependent on subcarrier spacing”, and “the extra time offset is dependent on a processing time capability of the UE” as the prior art of record in stand-form nor in combination read into the disclosed claims as supported by the specification. Furthermore the nearest prior art such as US-20240236980-A1 to Choi, WO-2022035238-A1 to Molavian, US-20160270062-A1 to Dinan disclose PUCCH and HARQ-ACK messaging but are silent on timing considerations when using dynamic switching of PUCCH groups and messaging.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO form PTO-892: US-20240236980-A1 to Choi, WO-2022035238-A1 to Molavian, US-20160270062-A1 to Dinan disclose PUCCH and HARQ-ACK messaging.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 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 LOUIS SAMARA whose telephone number is (408)918-7582. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6-3 PT.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/L.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2476
/AYAZ R SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2476