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 with respect to claim(s) 16, 18-20, 22-24, 26-28, 30, and 31 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2023/0319822) (“Park”).
For claims 16, 20, 24, and 28; Park discloses: receiving first information related to whether a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback for a HARQ process is disabled (paragraph 237-306, 334-342: HARQ-ACK can be enabled/disabled by SIB, RRC MAC-CE, DCI) (paragraph 335-337: The SPS configuration information may be transmitted to the UE through RRC signaling from the NTN or the BS. The SPS configuration information may include parameters defined in Table 18…plurality of SPS configurations based on an SPS index indicated by the SPS configuration information…the UE may determine whether to perform HARQ feedback for a HARQ process based on the SPS index indicated by the SPS configuration information) and second information related to whether the HARQ feedback for a semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) is enabled (paragraph 340: the UE may receive, from the NTN, second DCI indicating or changing HARQ process-enabled/disabled for the activated SPS configuration separately from the first DCI. In this case, the UE may change a HARQ feedback-enabled/disabled configuration for at least one HARQ process for the SPS configuration according to the SPS configuration information based on the second DCI); receiving the SPS PDSCH corresponding to the HARQ process; and if the first information indicates that the HARQ feedback for the HARQ process is disabled and the second information indicates that the HARQ feedback for the SPS PDSCH is enabled, transmitting HARQ-acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) information for the SPS PDSCH corresponding to the HARQ process (paragraph 340: the UE may receive, from the NTN, second DCI indicating or changing HARQ process-enabled/disabled for the activated SPS configuration separately from the first DCI. In this case, the UE may change a HARQ feedback-enabled/disabled configuration for at least one HARQ process for the SPS configuration according to the SPS configuration information based on the second DCI).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 18, 22, 26, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Ye et al. (US 2021/0258104) (“Ye”).
For claims 18, 22, 26, and 30; Park discloses the subject matter in claim 16 as described above in the office action. Park discloses: the first information related to whether the HARQ feedback for the HARQ process is disabled (paragraph 237-306, 334-342: HARQ-ACK can be enabled/disabled by SIB, RRC MAC-CE, DCI) (paragraph 257-259: HARQ feedback-disabled is configured through RRC) (paragraph 257-259: HARQ feedback-disabled is configured through RRC… a configuration related to HARQ feedback-disabled is semi-statically configured through RRC with respect to each HARQ process) and the second information related to whether the HARQ feedback for the SPS PDSCH is enabled (paragraph 340: the UE may receive, from the NTN, second DCI indicating or changing HARQ process-enabled/disabled for the activated SPS configuration separately from the first DCI. In this case, the UE may change a HARQ feedback-enabled/disabled configuration for at least one HARQ process for the SPS configuration according to the SPS configuration information based on the second DCI).
Park does not expressly disclose, but Ye from similar fields of endeavor teaches: the first information and the second information are received through radio resource control (RRC) signaling (paragraph 94-98: Each HARQ process in the first set of HARQ processes is configured to enable a HARQ feedback, and each HARQ process in the second set of HARQ processes is configured to disable or enable a HARQ feedback. In each HARQ process in the first set of HARQ processes, the HARQ feedback is always on. In each HARQ process in the second set of HARQ processes, the HARQ feedback is flexible, may be on or off…UE106 may receive the RRC message or the MAC CE message 603 through a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH), where each HARQ process in the second set of HARQ processes may be configured to disable or enable the HARQ feedback by the RRC message or the MAC CE message…the RRC/MAC CE message 603 may indicate a starting time, an ending time, a duration of the HARQ feedback being enabled or disabled). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the signaling as described by Ye in the HARQ configuration as described by Park. The motivation is to improve quality of service.
Claim(s) 19, 23, 27, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Dai et al. (US 2023/0269778) (“Dai”).
For claims 19, 23, 27, and 31; Park discloses the subject matter in claim 16 as described above in the office action.
Park does not expressly disclose, but Dai from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the PDSCH includes a slot aggregated PDSCH (paragraph 95: repeated transmission of PDSCH over successive slots (also referred to as slot-repetition/-aggregation, or multi-slot PDSCH), as illustrated in FIG. 11, is supported to increase the transmission reliability). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the signaling as described by Dai in the HARQ configuration as described by Park. The motivation is to improve transmission reliability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jung et al. (US 2020/0145167); Jung discloses transmitting the HARQ-ACK information can be determined from the group of PUCCH resources. The HARQ-ACK information can be transmitted based on the second PUCCH resource.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D BLANTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3933. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-6pm EST, Mon-Thu.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/JOHN D BLANTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights