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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/18/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in CN on 2/7/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the PCT/CN2022/075398 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/24/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Examiner notes that Publication Number for US Patent Application filed 9/23/2021 by Xu Bin is incorrect.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 & 18 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks”, filed 12/18/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 10-12 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn. However, these claims 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that claims 1-8, 18 & 19 are patentable based on amendments to claims 1 & 18. Examiner respectfully disagrees noting that a claimed invention may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 when the invention is anticipated (or is “not novel”) over a disclosure that is available as prior art that teaches every element required by the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation (see §MPEP 2131).
Regarding claims 1 & 18, applicant argues that Ye does not disclose “the IoT HARQ feedback field overwrites the IoT per-HARQ-process-feedback enable-disable field for one or more corresponding HARQ processes when presented based on an overwriting rule”, arguing that Ye never teaches a rule in which a DCI indication overrides a preconfigured RRC per-process state. Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting that the amended claim language for claims 1 & 18 still does not require that a DCI field overrides a preconfigured RRC field. Fig 6 & [0082]-[0083] of Ye disclose a BS transmitting configuration information for enabling or disabling of HARQ-ACK information for one or more HARQ process in step 602. This can be interpreted as a pre-configuration sent in an IoT per-HARQ-process-feedback enable-disable field. Then in steps 604 & 606, the BS generates and transmits a DCI with a field that is size 0 or larger than 0 depending on whether or not HARQ-ACK information for a specific HARQ process is disable of enabled. A broadest reasonable interpretation is that when the DCI field is sent in step 606 with size 0 or larger than 0 indicating to enable or disable HARQ , this would overwrite the enable-disable state sent by the pre-configured per-HARQ-process-feedback enable-disable field in step 602, and thus the DCI field with size 0 indicating disable HARQ and larger than size 0 indicating enable HARQ represents an overwriting rule.
Examiner would like to note that in the interview on 11/13/2025, examiner indicated that amending claim 7 to include verbiage to make it clear that the new rule is sent though “DCI” and overwrites a HARQ disabled rule sent by “RRC” would provide a distinction not disclosed by Ye and would require further search. Applicant failed to include such verbiage in claim 7, but instead merely added the verbiage of claim 7 to claims 1 & 18. Since examiner has shown claim 7 to be disclosed by Ye, examiner submits that amended claims 1 & 18 has been shown to be disclosed by Ye. Examiner notes that, upon further review, had the applicant added verbiage to claims 1 & 18 to recite that the new rule is sent though “DCI” and overwrites a HARQ disabled rule sent by “RRC”, this would still be disclosed by Ye based on Fig 6 & [0082]-[0083] which disclose that the pre-configured enabling-disabling information sent in step 602 may be through RRC signaling, while in step 604 a DCI is used to overwrite the enabling-disabling state indicated in step 602.
Applicant argues that Ye fails to teach a rule in which a DCI indication overrides a preconfigured RRC per-process state. Examiner respectfully disagrees noting that, as discussed above, a broadest reasonable interpretation of Fig 6 & [0082]-[0083] of Ye is that when the DCI field is sent in step 606 with size 0 or larger than 0 indicating to enable or disable HARQ , this would overwrite the enable-disable state sent by the pre-configured per-HARQ-process-feedback enable-disable field in step 602.
Applicant argues that Ye indicates that the relationship between RRC configuration and DCI indications is opposite to that in claim 7 because [0106] recites that “the HARQ-ACK information disabling indication by the DCI format can be applicable only for HARQ processes that are not configured HARQ-ACK information disabling RRC signaling”. Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting that if a DCI indication for disabling HARQ-ACK information is only applied to HARQ processes that are not configured by RRC to be disabled, this further enforces that the DCI indicating to disable HARQ-ACK is overwriting the HARQ processes that were configured by RRC to be HARQ enabled. In other words, [0106] is merely disclosing that if a particular HARQ process has already been pre-configured to be disabled through RRC signaling, there is no need to send a DCI to disable such HARQ processes, and it is only necessary to send a DCI indicating to disable a HARQ process if the HARQ process was pre-configured by RRC to be enabled to overwrite the RRC pre-configured enabled HARQ state with a disabled HARQ state.
Based on the above discussion, examiner rejects amended claims 1 & 18 under 35 USC 102 based on Ye.
Regarding dependent claims 2-8 & 19, applicant submits that these claims are patentable based on amendments and arguments made above to claims 1 & 18 and due to their dependency on claims 1 or 18. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and for the same reasons as discussed above maintains rejection of these claims under 35 USC 102 based on Ye.
Applicant submits that claims 9-17 & 20 are patentable based on amendments to claims 1 & 18 and/or additional features recited. Examiner respectfully disagrees noting that per 35 U.S.C. 103, a patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained 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 (see §MPEP 2141).
Regarding dependent claim 9, applicant submits that this claim is patentable based on amendments and arguments made above to claim 1 and due to its dependency on claim 1 and because Cui et al. (US 2024/0031077)(herein after “Cui”) nor does not cure the deficiencies discussed above. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and for the same reasons as discussed above maintains rejection of claim 9 under 35 USC 103 based on Ye in view of Cui.
Regarding claim 13, applicant argues that the combination of Ye with Lin et al. (WO 2020065530)(herein after “Lin”) does not form a valid 103 rejection because there is no teaching of “determining a new-data state for receiving data based on an IoT new-data rule and the HARQ feedback disabling information” or overwriting the NDI field using an IoT-specific rule, since Lin teaches of ignoring NDI and does not teach of overwriting NDI under a gated rule or where the rule is conditioned on, or applied responsive to, the HARQ feedback disabling information as a gating input, as recited in claim 13. Examiner respectfully disagrees noting that Fig 16 & [0136] of Lin disclose a scenario where HARQ feedback is based on a new rule to ignore the NDI field in a DCI for specific HARQ processes indicated in the DCI. Ye in [0085] was shown to disclose that HARQ feedback can be disabled for certain HARQ processes through HARQ feedback information sent in a DCI indicating a 0 size bit field for HARQ process to be disabled. Combining Ye and Lin discloses a scenario where HARQ feedback for a first group of HARQ processes has been disabled through a DCI indicating a 0 size bit field, as disclosed by Ye, and where RRC signaling indicates the NDI field is to be ignored (i.e. a new data rule) for a second group of HARQ processes indicated in a DCI, as discloses by Lin. The new data rule still allows the UE to determine whether the receiving data is initial-transmission data or re-transmission data for all HARQ processes (since the new rule is to ignore the NDI and not alter the NDI), but for HARQ processes that are in both the first and second group of HARQ processes (i.e. HARQ processes with HARQ enabled and a DCI has indicated to ignore NDI for these HARQ processes), the new data rule to ignore the NDI for these HARQ process would overwrite the NDI field (i.e. even though the NDI field may indicate a retransmission, the UE would ignore the NDI and treat the data as an initial transmission). Thus, Ye in view of Lin, discloses all the features of claim 13.
Applicant argues that Lin assumes that HARQ feedback is active and that Lin is incompatible with HARQ-disabled behavior. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that claim 13 recites that a UE receives HARQ feedback disabling information indicating that HARQ feedback is disabled. This limitation does not require that HARQ is disabled for ALL HARQ processes. The UE may receive and indication that only a group of HARQ processes are disabled and this is enough to disclose “receiving, by a user equipment (UE), hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback disabling information in an Internet of Things (IoT) network, wherein the HARQ feedback disabling information indicates that HARQ feedback is disabled”. With this understanding, while the teachings of Lin may be most relevant to HARQ processes that are active, this does not mean that the teachings of Lin assumes or is incompatible with HARQ disabled processes (i.e. the data rule to ignore the NDI for HARQ disabled processes would still be followed, even though it may be redundant for disable HARQ processes).
Based on the above discussion, examiner maintains rejection of claim 13 under 35 USC 103 based on Ye in view of Lin.
Regarding claims 17 & 20, applicant submits that these claims are patentable based on amendments and/or arguments made above to claims 13 & 18 and due to their dependency on claims 13 or 18. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and for the same reasons as discussed above maintains rejection of these claims under 35 USC 103.
Regarding claims 14-16, applicant argues that these claims are patentable because the purpose for repurposing the DCI field is not obvious without the teachings of the claims. Examiner respectfully disagrees noting that Lin teaches of a new data rule that repurposes DCI fields for the purpose of disabling HARQ (see [0107] in Lin). Lin does not teach of the specific DCI fields used for repurposing, but 3GPP teaches of the specific DCI fields, and thus it would be obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Lin (i.e. repurposing DCI fields for the purpose of disabling HARQ) with the teaching of 3GPP (i.e. disclosure of the specific DCI fields available for repurposing) to base a new data rule for disabling HARQ on repurposing the DCI fields, as taught by Lin, using the specific DCI fields taught by 3GPP.
Applicant submits that these claims are patentable based on amendments and/or arguments made above to claim 13 and due to their dependency on claim 13. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and for the same reasons as discussed above maintains rejection of these claims under 35 USC 103.
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 pre-AIA 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 1-8, 18 & 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ye et al. (US 20220109529)(herein after “Ye”).
Regarding Claim 1, Ye discloses a method, comprising: receiving, by a user equipment (UE) (Fig 1 & [0027] disclose UEs 111 to 116.),
hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) configuration information (Fig 7 & [0084] disclose a configuration for enabling or disabling HARQ-ACK information.)
in an Internet of Things (IoT) network ([0079] discloses an NTN system. [0071] discloses that NTN systems can include NB-IoT.), wherein
the UE is configured with one or more HARQ processes ([0078 discloses a UE with a number of HARQ processes.), and
wherein the HARQ configuration information comprises one or more IoT HARQ information fields (Figs 9A/9B & [0101-0103] disclose a HARQ codebook with information fields indicating HARQ processes enabled and HARQ processes disabled.) and wherein the one or more IoT HARQ information fields comprise an IoT per-HARQ-process-feedback enable-disable field that indicates an HARQ feedback enable-disable state per HARQ process ([0078] discloses enhancements for HARQ-ACK feedback disabling per HARQ process. [0085] discloses a UE receiving configuration information indicating enabling or disabling of HARQ-ACK information for one or more HARQ processes, where the indication is for each corresponding process, and that a UE receives a DCI that has size 0 bit field for corresponding HARQ processes that have been disabled, and a larger than 0 bit field for HARQ processes that have not been disabled. [0086] discloses a further embodiment where UE-specific RRC signaling includes configuration information indicating whether or not HARQ-ACK information is disabled, and that the configuration information can be indicated via a length-N bitmap, where N is the number of configured HARQ processes, having a one-to-one mapping with configured HARQ processes where a bit of 0 value indicates that HARQ-ACK in enabled for the corresponding HARQ process and a bit value of 1 indicates that HARQ-ACK is disabled for the corresponding HARQ process. Thus disclosed is a UE receiving per-HARQ-process field indicating a HARQ feedback enable-disable state per HARQ process.), and
an loT HARQ feedback field, and wherein the IoT HARQ feedback field overwrites the IoT per-HARQ-process-feedback enable-disable field for one or more corresponding HARQ processes when presented based on an overwriting rule (Fig 6 & [0082] disclose a gNB providing UE configuration information for enabling or disabling HARQ-ACK for one or more processes (i.e. provides an IoT per-HARQ-process-feedback enable-disable field). [0083] discloses a configuration of HARQ-ACK feedback disabling where a gNB generates a DCI format in a PDCCH transmission, wherein the DCI format is configured with one or more fields that indicate whether the HARQ process is enabled (0 bit field) or disabled (larger than 0 bit field), the one or more fields representing an IoT HARQ feedback field that overwrites the initial UE configuration information field using an overwriting rule where a corresponding HARQ process is enabled when there is a 0 bit field in the DCI and a corresponding HARQ process is disabled when there is a larger than 0 bit field in the DCI.);
determining an HARQ feedback enable-disable state for each HARQ process based on the HARQ configuration information ([0104] discloses a UE determining HARQ feedback to report for each HARQ process based on a HARQ codebook.);
and performing HARQ feedback enabling and disabling procedures for each HARQ process based on the HARQ configuration information ([0104] discloses a UE can report HARQ feedback for each HARQ process based on a HARQ codebook.).
Regarding Claim 2, Ye discloses wherein the one or more IoT HARQ information fields further comprise an explicit IoT HARQ feedback field ([0106] discloses a DCI field that explicitly provides HARQ-ACK information for each HARQ process.), and an implicit IoT HARQ feedback field ([0108] discloses an implicit HARQ feedback field using a bitmap that is a smaller size than the number of HARQ processes, where a range of bits in the bitmap indicate enabling or disabling of HARQ-ACK information for a group of HARQ processes.).
Regarding Claim 3, Ye discloses wherein the IoT per-HARQ-process- feedback enable-disable field is received through UE specific radio resource control (RRC) signaling (Figs 9A/9B & [0105] disclose configuring per HARQ process enabling or disabling information through RRC signaling.), and wherein
the determining HARQ feedback enable-disable state of each HARQ process is based on the IoT per-HARQ-process-feedback enable- disable field ([0105] discloses a UE determining per HARQ process enabling or disabling based on higher layer configuration fields in RRC signaling.).
Regarding Claim 4, Ye discloses wherein the IoT per-HARQ-process- feedback enable-disable field includes HARQ process number equals to zero ([0088] discloses enabling-disabling a number of HARQ processes (i.e. one or more) by configuring a starting index and number of HARQ processes with HARQ-ACK disabled. Example is disclosed where N1 is a starting HARQ process ID (e.g. HARQ process number equal to 0).), and
wherein the HARQ feedback enabling and disabling procedures further includes: performing HARQ feedback enabling and disabling procedures for one or more HARQ process without HARQ process number ([0088] discloses enabling-disabling a number of HARQ processes (i.e. one or more) by configuring a starting index and number of HARQ processes with HARQ-ACK disabled. Example is disclosed where HARQ processes with IDs N1 to N2 are configured with disabled HARQ-ACK where the indication is provided via sending N1 as a starting HARQ process ID (e.g. HARQ process number 0) and (N2-N1 +1) as a number of HARQ processes with HARQ-ACK disabled. Thus, the disabling of HARQ processes N1+1 through N2 is performed without indicating their HARQ process number.).
Regarding Claim 5, Ye discloses wherein the explicit IoT HARQ feedback field is received in a downlink control information (DCI) ([0106] discloses a DCI field that explicitly provides HARQ-ACK information for each HARQ process.).
Regarding Claim 6, Ye discloses wherein the IoT per-HARQ-process- feedback enable-disable field is not present and the UE performing HARQ feedback enabling and disabling procedures based on the explicit IoT HARQ feedback field that explicitly indicates an enable-disable feedback state for one or more HARQ processes ([0106] discloses a UE performing HARQ feedback enabling-disabling based on a DCI explicitly indicating enable-disable feedback state for a HARQ process, that is applicable when per HARQ-ACK information for enabling-disabling through RRC signaling is not present.).
Regarding Claim 7, Ye discloses wherein the UE is a narrow band (NB)IoT device, ([0079] discloses apparatuses applied to NTN systems. [0071] discloses that NTN can include NB-IoT.)
and wherein the enable-disable feedback state for each HARQ process is determined based on the IoT per-HARQ- process-feedback enable-disable field, and wherein the explicit or implicit IoT HARQ feedback field overwrites the IoT per-HARQ-process- feedback enable-disable field for one or more corresponding HARQ processes when presented based on an overwriting rule (Fig 6 & [0082] disclose a gNB providing UE configuration information for enabling or disabling HARQ-ACK for one or more processes (i.e. provides an IoT per-HARQ-process-feedback enable-disable field). [0083] discloses a configuration of HARQ-ACK feedback disabling where a gNB generates a DCI format in a PDCCH transmission, wherein the DCI format is configured with one or more fields that indicate whether the HARQ process is enabled (0 bit field) or disabled (larger than 0 bit field), the one or more fields representing an IoT HARQ feedback field that overwrites the initial UE configuration information field using an overwriting rule where a corresponding HARQ process is enabled when there is a 0 bit field in the DCI and a corresponding HARQ process is disabled when there is a larger than 0 bit field in the DCI.).
Regarding Claim 8, Ye discloses wherein the IoT per-HARQ-process-feedback enable-disable field is not present and the UE performing HARQ feedback enabling and disabling procedure based on the HARQ feedback enable- disable state for each HARQ process is determined based on the implicit IoT HARQ feedback field ([0083] discloses a configuration of HARQ-ACK feedback disabling where a gNB generates a DCI format in a PDCCH transmission, wherein the DCI format is configured with one or more fields that indicate whether a HARQ process is enabled (0 bit field) or disabled (larger than 0 bit field.) In the case where the HARQ process is being indicated as enabled, the HARQ process enable-disable field in the DCI would not be present (i.e. 0 bit field) and the UE would perform HARQ feedback enabling implicitly by the absence of the HARQ process enable-disable field in the DCI.)
Regarding Claim 18, Ye discloses a user equipment (UE) (Fig 1 & [0027] disclose UEs 111 to 116.), comprising:
a transceiver that transmits and receives radio frequency (RF) signal (Fig 3 & [0006] discloses a UE including a radio frequency (RF) transceiver.)
in an Internet of Things (IoT) network ([0079] discloses an NTN system. [0071] discloses that NTN systems can include NB-IoT.);
a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) configuration module that receives HARQ configuration information, wherein the UE is configured with one or more HARQ processes, and wherein the HARQ configuration information comprises one or more IoT HARQ information fields and wherein the one or more IoT HARQ information fields comprise an IoT per-HARQ-process-feedback enable-disable field that indicates an HARQ feedback enable-disable state per HARQ process ([0078] discloses enhancements for HARQ-ACK feedback disabling per HARQ process. Fig 7 & [0084]-[0085] discloses a UE receiving configuration information indicating enabling or disabling of HARQ-ACK information for one or more HARQ processes, where the indication is for each corresponding process, and that a UE receives a DCI that has size 0 bit field for corresponding HARQ processes that have been disabled, and a larger than 0 bit field for HARQ processes that have not been disabled. [0086] discloses a further embodiment where UE-specific RRC signaling includes configuration information indicating whether or not HARQ-ACK information is disabled, and that the configuration information can be indicated via a length-N bitmap, where N is the number of configured HARQ processes, having a one-to-one mapping with configured HARQ processes where a bit of 0 value indicates that HARQ-ACK in enabled for the corresponding HARQ process and a bit value of 1 indicates that HARQ-ACK is disabled for the corresponding HARQ process. Thus disclosed is a UE receiving per-HARQ-process configuration information for one or more HARQ processes, through bit fields in a DCI, indicating a HARQ feedback enable-disable state per HARQ process.), and
an loT HARQ feedback field, and wherein the IoT HARQ feedback field overwrites the IoT per-HARQ-process-feedback enable-disable field for one or more corresponding HARQ processes when presented based on an overwriting rule (Fig 6 & [0082] disclose a gNB providing UE configuration information for enabling or disabling HARQ-ACK for one or more processes (i.e. provides an IoT per-HARQ-process-feedback enable-disable field). [0083] discloses a configuration of HARQ-ACK feedback disabling where a gNB generates a DCI format in a PDCCH transmission, wherein the DCI format is configured with one or more fields that indicate whether the HARQ process is enabled (0 bit field) or disabled (larger than 0 bit field), the one or more fields representing an IoT HARQ feedback field that overwrites the initial UE configuration information field using an overwriting rule where a corresponding HARQ process is enabled when there is a 0 bit field in the DCI and a corresponding HARQ process is disabled when there is a larger than 0 bit field in the DCI.);
an HARQ feedback state module that determines an HARQ feedback enable-disable state for each HARQ process based on the HARQ configuration information ([0104] discloses a UE that determines HARQ feedback to report based on a HARQ codebook.); and
an HARQ feedback enable-disable module that performs HARQ feedback enabling and disabling procedures for each HARQ process based on the HARQ configuration information ([0104] discloses a UE that reports HARQ feedback based on a HARQ codebook.).
Regarding Claim 19. Ye discloses wherein the one or more IoT HARQ information fields further comprise an explicit IoT HARQ feedback field ([0106] discloses a DCI field that explicitly provides HARQ-ACK information for each HARQ process.), and an implicit IoT HARQ feedback field ([0108] discloses an implicit HARQ feedback field using a bitmap that is a smaller size than the number of HARQ processes, where a range of bits in the bitmap indicate enabling or disabling of HARQ-ACK information for a group of HARQ processes.).
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 9 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ye et al. (US 20220109529)(herein after “Ye”) in view of Cui et al. (US 2024/0031077)(herein after “Cui”).
Regarding Claim 9, Ye discloses the method of Claim 2.
Ye fails to disclose wherein the implicit IoT HARQ feedback field is a repetition number in corresponding DCI, and wherein the repetition number is compared to a predefined threshold value to determine the HARQ feedback enable-disable state for each HARQ process.
However, Cui teaches wherein the implicit IoT HARQ feedback field is a repetition number in corresponding DCI, and wherein the repetition number is compared to a predefined threshold value to determine the HARQ feedback enable-disable state for each HARQ process ([0045]-[0046] discloses a wireless communication device receiving from a wireless communication node a DCI with fields indicating a parameter and a threshold (i.e. predetermined by the wireless communication node) to determine whether to disable an HARQ process, where the parameter may be a repetition number, and the communication device calculates a transmission metric based on the parameter and compares the transmission metric with the threshold to determine whether to disable an HARQ process. A broadest reasonable interpretation would be that the transmission metric is equal to the repetition number and compared to a threshold.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of Claim 2, as disclosed by Ye, wherein the implicit IoT HARQ feedback field is a repetition number in corresponding DCI, and wherein the repetition number is compared to a predefined threshold value to determine the HARQ feedback enable-disable state for each HARQ process, as taught by Cui. The motivation to do so would be have a method for a communication device to receive a DCI indicating a repetition number and a threshold, and to disable an HARQ process when the repetition number is greater than the threshold to prevent HARQ stalling in wireless systems with long round trip delays.
Claims 13, 17 & 20 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ye et al. (US 20220109529)(herein after “Ye”) in view of Lin et al. (WO 2020065530)(herein after “Lin”).
Regarding Claim 13, Ye discloses a method, comprising: receiving, by a user equipment (UE) (Fig 1 & [0027] disclose UEs 111 to 116.),
hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback disabling information (Fig 7 & [0084] disclose a configuration for enabling or disabling HARQ-ACK information.)
in an Internet of Things (IoT) network ([0079] discloses an NTN system. [0071] discloses that NTN systems can include NB-IoT.),
wherein the HARQ feedback disabling information indicates that HARQ feedback is disabled ([0085] discloses a UE receiving configuration information indicating enabling or disabling of HARQ-ACK information where a UE receives a DCI that has size 0 bit field for corresponding HARQ processes that have been disabled.);
Ye fails to disclose a method, comprising: determining a new-data state for receiving data based on an IoT new-data rule and the HARQ feedback disabling information, wherein the IoT new-data rule determines whether the receiving data is initial-transmission data or re- transmission data, and wherein the IoT new-data rule overwrites a new data indication (NDI) field; and processing the receiving data based on the new-data state.
However, Lin teaches a method, comprising: determining a new-data state for receiving data based on an IoT new-data rule (Fig 16 & [0136] discloses a UE receiving an RRC message indicating a new rule which is to ignore the NDI field of DCIs for specific HARQ processes. The UE would determine new-data states for receiving data based on this new rule (i.e. ignoring the NDI field).),
wherein the IoT new-data rule determines whether the receiving data is initial-transmission data or re- transmission data (Fig 16 & [0136] discloses a new-data rule that ignores an NDI field in a DCI when an RRC message indicates to the UE to use the new-data rule. Thus, the new-data rule would determine that the receiving data is an initial-transmission since the UE would ignore the NDI, and not perform a re-transmission.),
and wherein the IoT new-data rule overwrites a new data indication (NDI) field (Fig 16 & [0136] discloses the new-data rule that ignores an NDI field in a DCI, indicating that the receiving data is an initial-transmission, which would overwrite an NDI field in the DCI that might otherwise indicate receiving data is a retransmission.);
and processing the receiving data based on the new-data state (Fig 16 & [0136] discloses a BS and a UE performing and processing downlink/uplink transmission/reception of a new data state.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a method, comprising: receiving, by a user equipment (UE), hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback disabling information in an Internet of Things (IoT) network, wherein the HARQ feedback disabling information indicates that HARQ feedback is disabled, as disclosed by Ye, and comprising: determining a new-data state for receiving data based on an IoT new-data rule, wherein the IoT new-data rule determines whether the receiving data is initial-transmission data or re- transmission data, and wherein the IoT new-data rule overwrites a new data indication (NDI) field; and processing the receiving data based on the new-data state, as taught by Lin. The motivation to do so would be to reduce transmission latency or improve throughput without having to introduce additional DCI fields by repurposing DCI fields to indicate HARQ disabled in high delay NTN/IoT systems.
Regarding Claim 17, Ye discloses the method of claim 13.
Ye fails to disclose wherein the IoT new-data rule is to ignore the NDI field and determine all receiving data are initial-transmission data.
However Lin teaches wherein the IoT new-data rule is to ignore the NDI field and determine all receiving data are initial-transmission data (Fig 16 & [0136] discloses a new-data rule that ignores an NDI field in a DCI when an RRC message indicates to the UE to use the new-data rule. Thus, the new-data rule would determine that the receiving data is an initial-transmission since the UE would ignore the NDI, and not perform a re-transmission.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of Claim 13, wherein the IoT new-data rule is to ignore the NDI field and determine all receiving data are initial-transmission data, as taught by Lin. The motivation to do so would be to reduce transmission latency or improve throughput without having to introduce additional DCI fields by repurposing DCI fields to indicate HARQ disabled in high delay NTN/IoT systems.
Regarding Claim 20, Ye discloses the UE of claim 18, further comprise an IoT new-data module that receives HARQ feedback disabling information (Fig 7 & [0084] disclose a configuration for enabling or disabling HARQ-ACK information that can be received by a UE.),
wherein the HARQ feedback disabling information indicates that the HARQ feedback process is disabled ([0085] discloses a UE receiving configuration information indicating enabling or disabling of HARQ-ACK information where a UE receives a DCI that has size 0 bit field for corresponding HARQ processes that have been disabled.),
Ye fails to disclose further comprise an IoT new-data module that determines a new-data state for receiving data based on an IoT new-data rule, wherein the IoT new-data rule determines whether the receiving data is initial- transmission data or re-transmission data, and wherein the IoT new-data rule overwrites a new data indication (NDI) field, and processes the receiving data based on the new-data state.
However, Lin teaches further comprise an IoT new-data module that determines a new-data state for receiving data based on an IoT new-data rule (Fig 16 & [0136] discloses a UE receiving an RRC message indicating a new rule which is to ignore the NDI field of DCIs for specific HARQ processes. The UE would determine new-data states for receiving data based on this new rule (i.e. ignoring the NDI field).), wherein the IoT new-data rule determines whether the receiving data is initial- transmission data or re-transmission data (Fig 16 & [0136] discloses a new-data rule that ignores an NDI field in a DCI when an RRC message indicates to the UE to use the new-data rule. Thus, the new-data rule would determine that the receiving data is an initial-transmission since the UE would ignore the NDI, and not perform a re-transmission.), and wherein the IoT new-data rule overwrites a new data indication (NDI) field, and processes the receiving data based on the new-data state (Fig 16 & [0136] discloses the new-data rule that ignores an NDI field in a DCI, indicating that the receiving data is an initial-transmission, which would overwrite an NDI field in the DCI that might otherwise indicate receiving data is a retransmission.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the UE of claim 18, further comprise an IoT new-data module that receives HARQ feedback disabling information, wherein the HARQ feedback disabling information indicates that the HARQ feedback process is disabled, as disclosed by Ye, determines a new-data state for receiving data based on an IoT new-data rule, wherein the IoT new-data rule determines whether the receiving data is initial- transmission data or re-transmission data, and wherein the IoT new-data rule overwrites a new data indication (NDI) field, and processes the receiving data based on the new-data state, as taught by Lin. The motivation to do so would be to reduce transmission latency or improve throughput experienced by UE devices in high delay NTN/IoT systems without having to introduce additional DCI fields by repurposing DCI fields to indicate HARQ disabled.
Claims 14-16 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ye et al. (US 20220109529)(herein after “Ye”) in view of Lin et al. (WO 2020065530)(herein after “Lin”) and further in view of 3GPP et al. (3GPP TS 36.212 V17.0.0 (2021-12))(herein after “3GPP”).
Regarding Claim 14, Ye in view of Lin disclose the method of Claim 13, wherein the UE is an NB IoT device using an IoT new-data rule based on repurposed data control information (DCI) fields.
Ye and Lin fail to disclose the IoT new-data rule is based on the NDI field and a HARQ- ACK resource field in data control information (DCI).
However, 3GPP discloses an NDI field and a HARQ-ACK resource field in data control information (DCI) (Page 249 discloses an NDI field and a HARQ-ACK resource field in a DCI format.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of Claim 13 wherein the UE is an NB IoT device and the IoT new-data rule for the purpose of enabling-disabling HARQ is based on data control information (DCI) fields, as disclosed by Ye & Lin, wherein the DCI fields that the IoT new-data rule is based on are the NDI field and a HARQ-ACK resource field, as taught by 3GPP. The motivation to do so would be to reduce transmission latency or improve throughput without having to introduce additional DCI fields by repurposing DCI fields to indicate HARQ disabled in high delay NTN/IoT systems.
Regarding Claim 15, Ye and Lin disclose the method of claim 13, wherein the UE is an enhanced machine type communication (eMTC) CE-Mode-A IoT device and the IoT new-data rule is based on a DCI.
Ye and Lin fail to disclose wherein the IoT new-data rule is based on the NDI field and a transmit power control (TPC) command for physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) field in DCI.
However, 3GPP teaches an NDI field and transmit power control (TPC) command for physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) field in a DCI (Page 187 discloses a TPC command for PUCCH field and a new data indicator field in a DCI format.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of Claim 13 wherein the UE is an enhanced machine type communication (eMTC) CE-Mode-A IoT device and the IoT new-data rule for the purpose of enabling-disabling HARQ is based on data control information (DCI) fields, as disclosed by Ye & Lin, wherein the DCI fields that the IoT new-data rule is based on are the NDI field and a transmit power control (TPC) command for physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) field in DCI, as taught by 3GPP. The motivation to do so would be to reduce transmission latency or improve throughput without having to introduce additional DCI fields by repurposing DCI fields to indicate HARQ disabled in high delay NTN/IoT systems.
Regarding Claim 16, Ye & Lin disclose the method of claim 13, wherein the UE is an enhanced machine type communication (eMTC) CE-Mode-B IoT device and the IoT new-data rule is based on a DCI.
Ye & Lin fail to disclose the IoT new-data rule is based on the NDI field and a HARQ-ACK resource offset field in DCI.
However, 3GPP teaches an NDI field and HARQ-ACK resource offset field in a DCI (Page 188 discloses a HARQ-ACK resource offset field in a DCI format. Page 187 discloses a new data indicator field in a DCI format.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of Claim 13 wherein the UE is an enhanced machine type communication (eMTC) CE-Mode-B IoT device and the IoT new-data rule for the purpose of enabling-disabling HARQ is based on data control information (DCI) fields, as disclosed by Ye & Lin, wherein the DCI fields that the IoT new-data rule is based on are the NDI field and a HARQ-ACK resource offset field in DCI, as taught by 3GPP. The motivation to do so would be to reduce transmission latency or improve throughput without having to introduce additional DCI fields by repurposing DCI fields to indicate HARQ disabled in high delay NTN/IoT systems.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES P SEYMOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-7654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Nishant Divecha can be reached at 571-270-3125. 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.
/JAMES P SEYMOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419