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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 6, 13, 18-21, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peng et al. (BR 122025003599 A2), hereinafter Peng.
Re. Claim 1, Peng teaches a feedback information transmission method, performed by a terminal, wherein the method comprises: receiving feedback indication information (¶0007 - obtaining, by a receiving end device, control information sent by a transmitting end device), wherein the feedback indication information is used to indicate whether the terminal is to transmit target feedback information (¶0007 - determining, by the receiving end device, feedback information for at least one transport block based on the time unit aggregation information and the DAI indication information), the target feedback information is feedback information that is reported by the terminal within a target time window (¶0008 - The receiving end device obtains the time unit aggregation information and the DAI indication information sent by the transmitting end device, determines the return information for at least one transport block based on the time unit aggregation information and the DAI indication information, and finally sends the return information for at least one transport block to the transmitting end device); and in a case that the feedback indication information indicates the terminal to transmit the target feedback information, transmitting the target feedback information (¶0007 - determining, by the receiving end device, feedback information for at least one transport block based on the time unit aggregation information and the DAI indication information; and sending, by the receiving end device, feedback information for at least one transport block to the transmitting end device) wherein in a case that the target time window comprises at least one time unit (¶0027 - the receiving end device determines, based on the time window information, return information for the carrier that is configured with time unit aggregation and/or whose time unit aggregation is enabled and/or whose configured amount of aggregated time units is greater than 1), the target feedback information is feedback information that is reported within a first quantity of time units before a designated time unit (Fig. 20 – Examiner interprets that the feedback must be returned before the DCI selects the window for the PUSCH on the provided timeline, ¶0038 - a method is provided for determining feedback information, including: obtaining, by a receiving end device, control information sent by a transmitting end device, wherein the control information includes time window information and time unit format information & ¶0039 - the time unit format information includes configured quantity and/or location information of time units to support uplink transmission in a time window); wherein the first quantity is determined based on a quantity of time units comprised in the target time window (¶0039 - determining, by the receiving end device, a quantity of bits of the return information based on the time window size and a quantity of time units for uplink transmission configured in the time window); and the designated time unit comprises a time unit to which a target symbol corresponding to target downlink control information (DCI) belongs, wherein the target symbol is an end symbol (¶0009 - the time unit aggregation information includes a maximum amount of time units that can be scheduled by a piece of downlink control information DCI. Examiner interprets that the “maximum amount of time units” herein includes an end symbol for the purposes of the DCI scheduling), wherein the feedback indication is transmitted in the target DCI (¶0053 - the processor is specifically configured to:... orchestrate, based on the C-DAI indication information in the DCIs in the i-th subset, feedback information for a transport block in a time unit scheduled by the DCIs.the processor is specifically configured to:... orchestrate, based on the C-DAI indication information in the DCIs in the i-th subset, feedback information for a transport block in a time unit scheduled by the DCIs).
Re. Claim 13, Peng teaches a feedback information transmission method, performed by a network device, wherein the method comprises: sending feedback indication information (¶0007 - obtaining, by a receiving end device, control information sent by a transmitting end device), wherein the feedback indication information is used to indicate whether a terminal is to transmit target feedback information (¶0007 - determining, by the receiving end device, feedback information for at least one transport block based on the time unit aggregation information and the DAI indication information), the target feedback information is feedback information that is reported by the terminal within a target time window (¶0008 - The receiving end device obtains the time unit aggregation information and the DAI indication information sent by the transmitting end device, determines the return information for at least one transport block based on the time unit aggregation information and the DAI indication information, and finally sends the return information for at least one transport block to the transmitting end device); wherein in a case that the target time window comprises at least one time unit (¶0027 - the receiving end device determines, based on the time window information, return information for the carrier that is configured with time unit aggregation and/or whose time unit aggregation is enabled and/or whose configured amount of aggregated time units is greater than 1), the target feedback information is feedback information that is reported within a first quantity of time units before a designated time unit (Fig. 20 – Examiner interprets that the feedback must be returned before the DCI selects the window for the PUSCH on the provided timeline, ¶0038 - a method is provided for determining feedback information, including: obtaining, by a receiving end device, control information sent by a transmitting end device, wherein the control information includes time window information and time unit format information & ¶0039 - the time unit format information includes configured quantity and/or location information of time units to support uplink transmission in a time window); wherein the first quantity is determined based on a quantity of time units comprised in the target time window (¶0039 - determining, by the receiving end device, a quantity of bits of the return information based on the time window size and a quantity of time units for uplink transmission configured in the time window); and the designated time unit comprises a time unit to which a target symbol corresponding to target downlink control information (DCI) belongs, wherein the target symbol is an end symbol (¶0009 - the time unit aggregation information includes a maximum amount of time units that can be scheduled by a piece of downlink control information DCI. Examiner interprets that the “maximum amount of time units” herein includes an end symbol for the purposes of the DCI scheduling), wherein the feedback indication is transmitted in the target DCI (¶0053 - the processor is specifically configured to:... orchestrate, based on the C-DAI indication information in the DCIs in the i-th subset, feedback information for a transport block in a time unit scheduled by the DCIs.the processor is specifically configured to:... orchestrate, based on the C-DAI indication information in the DCIs in the i-th subset, feedback information for a transport block in a time unit scheduled by the DCIs).
Re. Claim 18, Claim 18 is the apparatus claim related to Claims 1 and 13 and as such, the corresponding method disclosed in Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds. Additionally, Peng teaches a terminal, comprising a processor, a memory, and a program or instructions stored in the memory and executable on the processor (Fig. 10).
Re. Claims 3, 22, and 25, Peng teaches Claims 1, 13, and 18.
Additionally, Peng further teaches wherein the target time window is determined in at least one of manners: being configured by a higher layer; being configured by pre-definition; being implicitly obtained; OR being indicated by downlink control information (DCI) (¶0164 - After a quantity of aggregate time units is configured via higher layer signaling (e.g., RRC signaling), a quantity of time units scheduled by each DCI part is fixedly the quantity of aggregate time units configured via higher layer signaling. Therefore, "a maximum quantity of time units that can be scheduled by a DCI part" can be understood as "a quantity of time units that can be scheduled by a DCI part". Additionally, Examiner interprets that not all of the claimed features need to be mapped because of the presence of “Or”).
Re. Claim 6, Peng teaches Claim 1.
Additionally, Peng further teaches wherein the time unit is any one of: an uplink time unit (¶0039 - the time unit format information includes configured quantity and/or location information of time units to support uplink transmission in a time window.); and a downlink time unit (¶0039 - the time window information includes a set of downlink time units that may contain a PDSCH (the return information for the PDSCH may be returned via a target uplink control information piece) or a set of possible return time sequence K1 values); and the uplink time unit is at least one of: a time unit that is configured as an uplink time unit by higher-layer signaling; a time unit that is indicated as an uplink time unit by a dynamic slot format indication (SFI); a time unit that comprises an uplink symbol AND/OR a flexible symbol and that is configured by higher-layer signaling; or a time unit that comprises an uplink symbol AND/OR a flexible symbol and that is indicated by the dynamic SFI (¶0255 - the time window information may be determined based on the set of configured possible K1 values, and the SFIs are sent in higher layer signaling (eg, RRC signaling) and/or physical layer signaling (eg, common group DCI). Additionally, Examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features needs to be mapped because of the presence of “OR”, “AND/OR” and “ANY ONE OF”); and the downlink time unit is at least one of: a time unit that is configured as a downlink time unit by higher-layer signaling; a time unit that is indicated as a downlink time unit by the dynamic SFI; a time unit that comprises a downlink symbol and/or a flexible symbol and that is configured by higher-layer signaling; OR a time unit that comprises a downlink symbol AND/OR a flexible symbol and that is indicated by the dynamic SFI (¶0255 - the time window information may be determined based on the set of configured possible K1 values, and the SFIs are sent in higher layer signaling (eg, RRC signaling) and/or physical layer signaling (eg, common group DCI). Additionally, Examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features needs to be mapped because of the presence of “OR”, “AND/OR” and “ANY ONE OF”).
Re. Claim 20, Peng teaches Claim 13.
Additionally, Claim 20 is an apparatus claim of the method claimed in Claims 1 and 13, and depends on 13, as such the method claimed here is rejected under the same grounds as Claim 13. Further, Peng also discloses a network device, comprising a processor, a memory, and a program or instructions stored in the memory and executable on the processor (Fig. 10).
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 9, 10, 15, 17, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng in view of Sun Wei et al. (EP 3493437 B1), hereinafter Sun Wei.
Re. Claims 9 and 15, Peng teaches Claims 1 and 13.
Additionally, Peng teaches wherein the scheduling is a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) (¶0162 - If SPS PDSCH transmission is enabled and the receiving device needs to receive an SPS PDSCH in a time window, decoding result information may be subsequently returned for the SPS PDSCH).
Yet, Peng does not explicitly teach wherein the target feedback information comprises hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) information corresponding to semi-persistent scheduling (SPS).
However, Sun Wei expressly teaches wherein the target feedback information comprises hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) information corresponding to semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) (Pg. 10, Line 13 - the terminal device may perform sorting with reference to the foregoing two sorting manners, or HARQ-ACK feedback information that is scheduled in SPS may be placed at the first or last. Pg. 9, Line 8 - The base station sends the DCI to the terminal device, where the DCI includes the first indication information and a field used to indicate SPS, and the DCI is used to activate SPS transmission; and then the base station sends the downlink data to the terminal device according to a preset time interval. Each piece of downlink data that is sent after the DCI by the base station and that is transmitted based on SPS is corresponding to the 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 Sun Wei to the teaching of Peng. The motivation for such would be as Sun Wei provides that the transmission is a HARQ-ACK related to the SPS (Sun Wei, Pg. 10, Line 13). 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 10, 17, and 24, Peng teaches Claims 1, 13, and 24.
However, Peng does not explicitly teach wherein the target feedback information is feedback information having an indication identifier, wherein the indication identifier is indicated in the target downlink control information (DCI), or the indication identifier is same as an identifier corresponding to a hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) for a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) scheduled by the target DCI; wherein the indication identifier comprises a codebook index and/or priority information.
Additionally, Sun Wei further teaches wherein the target feedback information is feedback information having an indication identifier, wherein the indication identifier is indicated in the target downlink control information (DCI) (Pg. 6, Line 19 - the base station sends DCI corresponding to the downlink data. & Pg. 6, Line 23 - the terminal device determines, based on each piece of downlink data and the first indication information corresponding to each piece of downlink data received before the target TTI, first HARQ-ACK feedback information that needs to be fed back in the target TTI. Additionally, Examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features needs to be mapped because of the presence of “OR”), OR the indication identifier is same as an identifier corresponding to a hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) for a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) scheduled by the target DCI; wherein the indication identifier comprises a codebook index and/or priority information (Pg. 13, Line 11 - the HARQ-ACK feedback information sorted according to a preset order, where the preset order is an order that is pre-agreed between the terminal device and the network device).
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 Wei to the teaching of Peng. The motivation for such would be as Sun Wei provides that the indication identifier is found in the DCI (Sun Wei, Pg. 6, Line 19-23) and that the indication identifier comprises a codebook index (Sun Wei, Pg. 13, Line 11). 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 7 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng in view of Srinivasan et al. (2023/0079377), hereinafter Srinivasan.
Re. Claim 7 and 24, Peng teaches Claims 1 and 13.
However, Peng does not expressly teach wherein the time unit is a slot, a sub-slot, a symbol set or a symbol.
Yet, Srinivasan explicitly teaches wherein the time unit is a slot (Fig. 5, Fig. 6 - Processing time T1 is split into different slots labelled 1-5 on the timeline), a sub-slot, a symbol set or a symbol.
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 Srinivasan to the teaching of Peng. The motivation for such would be as Srinivasan provides a time unit can be a slot (Srinivasan, Fig. 5). 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng in view of Takeda et al. (2021/0112499), hereinafter Takeda.
Re. Claim 8, Peng teaches Claim 1.
Additionally, Peng further teaches wherein the transmitting the target feedback information comprises: transmitting the target feedback information and feedback information corresponding to the target PDSCH on a same time domain resource (¶0039 - the time window information includes a set of downlink time units that may contain a PDSCH (the return information for the PDSCH may be returned via a target uplink control information piece) or a set of possible return time sequence K1 values).
Yet, Peng does not expressly teach a case that the target physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) has been scheduled by the target DCI.
However, Takeda explicitly teaches a case that the target physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) has been scheduled by the target DCI (¶0110 - the DCI scheduling the unicast transmission (e.g., where the unicast transmission is transmitted on a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH)) may also be applied).
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 Takeda to the teaching of Sun Wei. The motivation for such would be as Takeda provides that the DCI may schedule a PDSCH (Takeda, ¶0110). 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 02/17/2026, with respect to claims 1, 13, and 18, as well as all depending claims have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant focuses mainly on the difference between "whether" and "how", stating that Peng, as provided teaches HOW the process occurs but not WHETHER the process occurs. Examiner understands that the use of the language "whether" indicates a condition wherein an event or process is performed or not performed, and allows for the selection of one of the two conditions. Herein, Examiner understands that the claimed language operates such that the claimed process in the independent claims only occurs when the terminal is selected to transmit, and does not claim any process wherein the terminal is selected to not transmit. Further, Examiner finds that the teaching of “how” to perform the event or process is sufficient to teaching the condition of the “whether” wherein the process is being performed, without having to show both sides of the condition. Additionally, Examiner has amended the reference Peng to better disclose the amendment for the target symbol of the DCI being an end symbol. Examiner interprets that in ¶0009 (the time unit aggregation information includes a maximum amount of time units that can be scheduled by a piece of downlink control information DCI.) the “maximum amount of time units” described therein includes an end symbol for the purposes of the DCI scheduling, and that Fig. 20 shows that the return information is provided before the DCI is transmitted or is used further in the process.
Additionally, Examiner recognizes the typographical error performed in previously presented, now cancelled Claims 2, 19, and 21, and has provided this second final action in order to include a new mapping from Peng (¶0053 - the processor is specifically configured to:... orchestrate, based on the C-DAI indication information in the DCIs in the i-th subset, feedback information for a transport block in a time unit scheduled by the DCIs.the processor is specifically configured to:... orchestrate, based on the C-DAI indication information in the DCIs in the i-th subset, feedback information for a transport block in a time unit scheduled by the DCIs) and amend the typographical error on the record without further issue. Examiner appreciates Applicant’s addressing of the matter.
In conclusion, Examiner upholds the rejections of Claims 1, 13, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and all claims depending therein under the same and 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (2022/0116150) - ¶0566-0578
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
/HASHIM S BHATTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475