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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1-4, 27, and 28, Applicant argues that Khoshnevisan and Gupta ‘…do not disclose "transmit, to the first TRP, an indication of the scheduling collision for selective transmission or retransmission of the first scheduled communication by the first TRP, the indication selected from states of feedback that include at least an acknowledgement, a negative acknowledgement, and a drop indication," as recited in amended claim 1 (emphasis added)…’ Examiner disagrees. Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Rather, the test for obviousness is whether the combination of references, taken as a whole, would have suggested the patentee’s invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Khoshnevisan discloses wherein a UE determines that scheduled PDSCH transmission 424 would completely overlap with transmission SPS 410 and that the UE may only decode the SPS configuration 410 and transmit a NACK for SPS2 and TRP2. (See Khoshnevisan para. 67, fig. 2) Gupta discloses a UE transmits a NACK to a TRP and that TRP retransmits/transmits. (See Gupta para. 118) That is, Khoshnevisan in view of Gupta suggests to one of ordinary skill possessing ordinary creativity that when a problem occurs with a transmission a NACK is sent to the TRP and the TRP retransmits/transmits the data again. Therefore, Applicant’s argument that fail to teach or suggest the disputed limitations is unpersuasive of error because the arguments fail to consider or address the proposed combined teachings.
Regarding claims 18-22, and 30, Applicant argues that Khoshnevisan and Gong does not disclose ‘…receive an indication of a detection, at a user equipment (UE), of a scheduling collision of a first scheduled communication of a first scheduling message from the first TRP and a second scheduled communication of a second scheduling message from a second TRP, the indication being one of states of feedback that include at least an acknowledgement, a negative acknowledgement, and a drop indication…’ Examiner disagrees. Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Rather, the test for obviousness is whether the combination of references, taken as a whole, would have suggested the patentee’s invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Khoshnevisan discloses wherein a UE determines that scheduled PDSCH transmission 424 would completely overlap with transmission SPS 410 and that the UE may only decode the SPS configuration 410 and transmit a NACK for SPS2 and TRP2. (See Khoshnevisan para. 67, fig. 2) Gong discloses a UE that sends a NACK and a TRP that retransmits based upon the NACK. (See Gong para. 417, 476) That is, Khoshnevisan in view of Gong suggests to one of ordinary skill possessing ordinary creativity that when a problem occurs with a transmission a NACK is sent to the TRP and the TRP retransmits/transmits the data again. Therefore, Applicant’s argument that fail to teach or suggest the disputed limitations is unpersuasive of error because the arguments fail to consider or address the proposed combined teachings.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan (2020/0205141), and further in view of Gupta (2019/0254007).
Regarding claim 1, Khoshnevisan discloses a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising:
One or more memory; and
one or more processors, coupled to the memory, configured to: (See Khoshnevisan fig. 10; UE with processor executing an algorithm stored in memory)
receive a first scheduling message from a first transmit receive point (TRP) and a second scheduling message from a second TRP; (See Khoshnevisan para. 32; Semi-persistent scheduling messages, SPS, to schedule a UE; para. 66, fig. 4; UE receives SPS1 from TRP1 and SPS2 from TRP2; see also para. 67)
detect a scheduling collision of a first scheduled communication of the first scheduling message and a second scheduled communication of the second scheduling message overlapping in time; and (See Khoshnevisan para. 32; Semi-persistent scheduling messages, SPS, to schedule a UE; para. 67, fig. 4; UE determines (e.g. detects) that scheduled PDSCH transmission 424 would completely overlap (e.g. overlapping in time) with a transmission of SPS 410)
transmit an indication of the scheduling collision wherein the indication selected from states of feedback that include at least an acknowledgment, a negative acknowledgment, and a drop indication. (See Khoshnevisan para. 67, fig. 4; UE determines (e.g. detects) that scheduled PDSCH transmission 424 would completely overlap (e.g. overlapping in time) with a transmission of SPS 410; UE may decode only the PDSCH transmission of the SPS configuration 410 and transmit a NACK (e.g. negative acknowledgment) for the PDSCH transmission 424 of SPS2 and TRP2)
Khoshnevisan does not explicitly disclose wherein when the indication is sent to the TRP, the TRP selectively transmits or retransmits the scheduled communication. However, Gupta does disclose wherein when the indication is sent to the TRP, the TRP selectively transmits or retransmits the scheduled communication. (See Gupta para. 118; UE transmits a NACK to the TRP and the TRP retransmits/transmits) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Khoshnevisan to include the teaching of wherein when the indication is sent to the TRP, the TRP selectively transmits or retransmits the scheduled communication of Gupta with the motivation being to ensure reliable communication and further to ensure important data is received and further to guarantee complete and accurate delivery of data.
Regarding claim 2, Khoshnevisan in view of Gupta discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the UE is configured to expect that scheduling collisions can occur between the first TRP and the second TRP. (See Khoshnevisan fig. 4, para. 67; UE expects a collision at 424 between SPS 1 and SPS 2; para. 32; configurations)
Regarding claim 3, Khoshnevisan discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to detect the scheduling collision, are configured to detect the scheduling collision further based at least in part on a capability of the UE for handling messages that overlap in time. (See Khoshnevisan fig. 4, para. 67; based upon UE being able to distinguish partially overlapping PDSCH transmissions (e.g. capability) UE determines whether to only decode the first SPS config); see also para. 66; based upon whether UE can distinguish partially overlapping)
Regarding claim 4, Khoshnevisan in view of Gupta discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the indication includes a negative acknowledgement for a dropped scheduled communication. (See Khoshnevisan fig. 4, para. 67; UE sends a NACK)
Regarding claim 8, Khoshnevisan in view of Gupta discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the indication includes a bit in a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) codebook report. (See Khoshnevisan para. 74; UE reports ACK or NACK based upon HARQ-Ack Codebook which has bits)
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.
Claims 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan (2020/0205141), and further in view of Gupta (2019/0254007) and further in view of Xue (2021/0219283).
Regarding claim 5, Khoshnevisan in view of Gupta discloses the UE of claim 1. Khoshnevisan discloses sending a NACK. (See Khoshnevisan fig. 4, para. 67) Khoshnevisan does not explicitly discloses wherein the indication includes a drop indication for one or more dropped scheduled communications that is separate. However, Xue does disclose wherein the indication includes a drop indication for one or more dropped scheduled communications that is separate. (See Xue para. 169; UE determines that two SCIs are both reserving the same subband and transmitting an indication of collision (e.g. separate from NACK)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Khoshnevisan to include the teaching of wherein the indication includes a drop indication for one or more dropped scheduled communications that is separate of Xue with the motivation being to reduce collisions (e.g. a NACK lets a device know the other device know it did not receive the information but an indication of collision could be used to schedule at a different time to prevent future collisions) and further to prevent retransmissions at the same exact slot which likely will cause another collision and further to maximize limited resources by reducing collisions and retransmissions.
Regarding claim 6, Khoshnevisan in view of Gupta in view of Xue discloses the UE of claim 5, wherein the one or more dropped scheduled communications includes a dropped scheduled communication from either the first TRP or the second TRP. (See Khoshnevisan fig. 4, para. 67; UE expects a collision at 424 between SPS 1 and SPS 2 and drops one; para. 32; configurations)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan (2020/0205141), and further in view of Gupta (2019/0254007) and further in view of Xue (2021/0219283) and further in view of Hosseini (2019/0342888).
Regarding claim 7, Khoshnevisan in view of Gupta in view of Xue discloses the UE of claim 5, wherein the one or more dropped scheduled communications includes both a dropped scheduled communication from the first link and a dropped scheduled communication from the second link. However, Hosseini does disclose wherein the one or more dropped scheduled communications includes both a dropped scheduled communication from the first link and a dropped scheduled communication from the second link. (See Hosseini para. 138; based on collision dropping resources for first or second RAT or a combination of thereof (e.g. both first and second RAT); See also para. 309;‘or’ is interpreted as being inclusive (similar to and)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Khoshnevisan in view of Xue to include the teaching of wherein the one or more dropped scheduled communications includes both a dropped scheduled communication from the first link and a dropped scheduled communication from the second link of Hosseini with the motivation being to allow devices on the network regardless of some limitations in capability and further to reduce processing usage and further to reduce battery consumption to attempt to decode difficult/error prone transmissions.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan (2020/0205141), and further in view of Gupta (2019/0254007) and further in view of Guan (2018/0167173).
Regarding claim 9, Khoshnevisan in view of Gupta discloses the UE of claim 8. Khoshnevisan does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication includes one or more additional bits that indicate a quantity of scheduled communications that are dropped for a HARQ codebook. However, Guan does disclose wherein the indication includes one or more additional bits that indicate a quantity of scheduled communications that are dropped for a HARQ codebook. (See Guan para. 154, 155; NACK or dropped or not received communication, ACK for received communication; terminal correctly fills in HARQ-ACK bit and generates codebook according to bit quantity) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Khoshnevisan to include the teaching of wherein the indication includes one or more additional bits that indicate a quantity of scheduled communications that are dropped for a HARQ codebook of Guan with the motivation being to allow for selective retransmission or part or all of a transmission and further to ensure both devices operate according to the agreed upon codebook which saves time and bandwidth.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan (2020/0205141), and further in view of Gupta (2019/0254007) and further in view of Fakoorian (2021/0058907).
Regarding claim 10, Khoshnevisan in view of Gupta disclose the UE of claim 1. Khoshnevisan does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the indication, are configured to transmit the indication in a medium access control control element (MAC CE) in a granted physical uplink shared channel resource. However, Fakoorian does disclose wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the indication, are configured to transmit the indication in a medium access control control element (MAC CE) in a granted physical uplink shared channel resource. (See Fakoorian para. 41; uplink grant to transmit ACK/NACK; para. 92; UE transmits MAC-CE carrying ACK/NACK on PUSCH) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Khoshnevisan to include the teaching of wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the indication, are configured to transmit the indication in a medium access control control element (MAC CE) in a granted physical uplink shared channel resource of Fakoorian with the motivation being to provide compatibility with the 3GPP suite of standards which saves time and money and further to allow for corrective action to maximize wireless resources and further to allow for less delay.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan (2020/0205141), and further in view of Gupta (2019/0254007) and further in view of Kang (2021/0352665).
Regarding claim 11, Khoshnevisan in view of Gupta discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the indication includes a bit in a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) codebook report that indicates that one or more dropped communications are dropped. (See Khoshnevisan para. 63; HARQ codebook; para. 67 NACK) Khoshnevisan does not explicitly disclose wherein the collision could be of a PUSCH. However, Kang does disclose wherein the collision could be of a PUSCH. (See Kang para. 290; collision of PUSCH (e.g. a Physical Uplink Shared CHannel)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Khoshnevisan to include the teaching of wherein the collision could be of a PUSCH. However, Kang does disclose wherein the collision could be of a PUSCH of Kang with the motivation being to detect collisions no matter what the channel being collided with and further to identify channels that are likely to collide and further to allow for the network to take corrective action to reduce wasteful resource allocations.
Regarding claim 12, Khoshnevisan in view of Gupta discloses the UE of claim 1. Khoshnevisan discloses wherein the indication includes a feedback codebook that indicates which received grants had communication that was dropped and which received grants had communications that were transmitted. (See Khoshnevisan para. 63; HARQ codebook; para. 67; ACK/NACK; para. 59; granted resources) Khoshnevisan does not explicitly disclose wherein the channel used is a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH). However, Kang does disclose wherein the channel used is a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH). (See Kang para. 290; collision of PUSCH (e.g. Physical Uplink Shared CHannel)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Khoshnevisan to include the teaching of wherein the channel used is a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) of Kang with the motivation being to detect collisions no matter what the channel being collided with and further to identify channels that are likely to collide and further to allow for the network to take corrective action to reduce wasteful resource allocations and further to provide compatibility with all channels of the 3GPP suite of standards which saves time and money.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan (2020/0205141), and further in view of Gupta (2019/0254007) and further in view of Papasakellariou (2021/0014026).
Regarding claim 13, Khoshnevisan in view of Gupta discloses the UE of claim 1.
Khoshnevisan does not explicitly discloses wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the indication, are configured to transmit the indication to a TRP of the first TRP and the second TRP for which a communication was dropped or downgraded. However, Papasakellariou does disclose wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the indication, are configured to transmit the indication to a TRP of the first TRP and the second TRP for which a communication was dropped or downgraded. (See Papasakellariou para. 143; second TRP receives a NACK (e.g. dropped or downgraded) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Khoshnevisan to include the teaching of wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the indication, are configured to transmit the indication to a TRP of the first TRP and the second TRP for which a communication was dropped or downgraded of Papasakellariou with the motivation being to reduce collisions (e.g. a NACK lets a device know the other device know it did not receive the information) and further to allow for corrective action to reduce network congestion/collisions and further to maximize limited resources by reducing collisions and retransmissions and further to inform the scheduler of the resource problems with reception of the transmission to allow for quick corrective action.
Regarding claim 14, Khoshnevisan in view of Gupta in view of Papasakellariou discloses the UE of claim 13, wherein the indication indicates that one or more communications were dropped or downgraded. (See Khoshnevisan para. 67; NACK)
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan (2020/0205141), and further in view of Gupta (2019/0254007) and further in view of Li (2019/0229852).
Regarding claim 15, Khoshnevisan in view of Gupta discloses the UE of claim 1. Khoshnevisan does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the indication, are configured to transmit the indication to both the first TRP and the second TRP. However, Li does disclose wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the indication, are configured to transmit the indication to both the first TRP and the second TRP. (See Li para. 91; transmit NACKs to multiple TRPs) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Khoshnevisan to include the teaching of wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the indication, are configured to transmit the indication to both the first TRP and the second TRP of Li with the motivation being to reduce collisions (e.g. a NACKs lets the devices know the other device know it did not receive the information) and further to allow for corrective action (such as better coordination) to reduce network congestion/collisions and further to maximize limited resources by reducing collisions and retransmissions and further to inform the scheduler of the resource problems with reception of the transmission to allow for quick corrective action.
Regarding claim 16, Khoshnevisan in view of Gupta in view of Li discloses the UE of claim 15, wherein the indication indicates that one or more communications were dropped or downgraded. (See Khoshnevisan para. 67; NACK)
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan (2020/0205141), and further in view of Gupta (2019/0254007) and further in view of Wang (2013/0242814).
Regarding claim 17, Khoshnevisan in view of Gupta discloses the UE of claim 1. Khoshnevisan does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication indicates a type of the scheduling collision. However, Wang does disclose wherein the indication indicates a type of the scheduling collision. (See Wang para. 77, fig. 9a; TPC bits to indicate a type 1 collision or not (e.g. a type of scheduling collision); see also para. 76; TPC bits set to indicate collisions between UEs) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Khoshnevisan to include the teaching of wherein the indication indicates a type of the scheduling collision of Wang with the motivation being to reduce collisions by finding the root cause to take corrective action (such as better coordination) to reduce network congestion/collisions and further to maximize limited resources by reducing collisions and retransmissions and further to inform the scheduler of the resource problems with reception of the transmission to allow for quick corrective action.
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.
Claims 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan (2020/0205141), and further in view of Gong (2020/0154467).
Regarding claim 18, Khoshnevisan discloses a first transmit receive point (TRP) for wireless communication, comprising: (See Khoshnevisan fig. 1, para. 58; 102 base station providing TRP)
One or more memories; and
one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to: (See Khoshnevisan para. 38; processor executing an algorithm stored in memory)
receive an indication of a detection, at a user equipment (UE), of a scheduling collision of a first scheduled communication of a first scheduling message from the first TRP and a second scheduled communication of a second scheduling message from a second TRP, the indication being one of states of feedback that include at least an acknowledgement, a negative acknowledgement, and a drop indication and (See Khoshnevisan para. 67, fig. 4; UE determines (e.g. detects) that scheduled PDSCH transmission 424 would completely overlap (e.g. overlapping in time) with a transmission of SPS 410; UE may decode only the PDSCH transmission of the SPS configuration 410 and transmit a NACK, a negative acknowledgement, (e.g. an indication of scheduling collision between two TRPs) for the PDSCH transmission 424 of SPS2 and TRP2 (e.g. first TRP))
Khoshnevisan does not explicitly disclose retransmit the communication based in part on the indication. However, Gong does disclose retransmit the communication based in part on the indication. (See Gong para. 417, 476; UE sends NACK; TRP retransmits based upon the NACK) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Khoshnevisan to include the teaching of retransmit the communication based in part on the indication of Gong with the motivation being to ensure receipt of important information (e.g. if the info is not received then it should be sent again if important) and further to provide reliable communication and further common sense (e.g. if the device says it did not receive the information, then it is logical to attempt to send it again).
Regarding claim 19, Khoshnevisan in view of Gong discloses the first TRP of claim 18, wherein the first TRP is configured to expect that scheduling collisions can occur between the first TRP and the second TRP. (See Khoshnevisan fig. 4, para. 67; TRPs can expect a collision at 424 between SPS 1 and SPS 2; para. 32; configurations; see also para. 66; TRP’s expect conflicts)
Regarding claim 20, Khoshnevisan in view of Gong discloses the first TRP of claim 18. Khoshnevisan does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors, to selectively retransmit data communication, are configured to retransmit the data communication based at least in part on receiving a NACK for a dropped communication. However, Gong does disclose wherein the one or more processors, to selectively retransmit data communication, are configured to retransmit the data communication based at least in part on receiving a NACK for a dropped communication. (See Gong para. 417, 476; UE sends NACK; TRP retransmits based upon the NACK) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Khoshnevisan to include the teaching of wherein the one or more processors, to selectively retransmit data communication, are configured to retransmit the data communication based at least in part on receiving a NACK for a dropped communication of Gong with the motivation being to ensure receipt of important information (e.g. if the info is not received then it should be sent again if important) and further to provide reliable communication and further common sense (e.g. if the device says it did not receive the information, then it is logical to attempt to send it again).
Regarding claim 21, Khoshnevisan in view of Gong discloses the first TRP of claim 18. Khoshnevisan does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors, to selectively retransmit the communication, are configured to retransmit the communication based at least in part on receiving a drop indication for the communication. However, Shao does disclose wherein the one or more processors, to selectively retransmit the communication, are configured to retransmit the communication based at least in part on receiving a drop indication for the communication. (See Gong para. 417, 476; UE sends NACK; TRP retransmits based upon the NACK) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Khoshnevisan to include the teaching of wherein the one or more processors, to selectively retransmit the communication, are configured to retransmit the communication based at least in part on receiving a drop indication for the communication of Gong with the motivation being to ensure receipt of important information (e.g. if the info is not received then it should be sent again if important) and further to provide reliable communication and further common sense (e.g. if the device says it did not receive the information, then it is logical to attempt to send it again).
Regarding claim 22, Khoshnevisan in view of Gong discloses the first TRP of claim 18, wherein the indication includes a bit in a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) codebook report. (See Khoshnevisan para. 74; UE reports ACK or NACK based upon HARQ-Ack Codebook which has bits)
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan (2020/0205141), and further in view of and further in view of Gong (2020/0154467) and further in view of Guan (2018/0167173).
Regarding claim 23, Khoshnevisan in view of Gong discloses the first TRP of claim 22. Khoshnevisan does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication includes one or more additional bits that indicate a quantity of scheduled communications that are dropped for a HARQ codebook. However, Guan does disclose wherein the indication includes one or more additional bits that indicate a quantity of scheduled communications that are dropped for a HARQ codebook. (See Guan para. 154, 155; NACK or dropped or not received communication, ACK for received communication; terminal correctly fills in HARQ-ACK bit and generates codebook according to bit quantity) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Khoshnevisan in to include the teaching of wherein the indication includes one or more additional bits that indicate a quantity of scheduled communications that are dropped for a HARQ codebook of Guan with the motivation being to allow for selective retransmission or part or all of a transmission and further to ensure both devices operate according to the agreed upon codebook which saves time and bandwidth.
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan (2020/0205141), and further in view of Gong (2020/0154467) and further in view of Kang (2021/0352665).
Regarding claim 24, Khoshnevisan in view of Gong discloses the first TRP of claim 18, wherein the indication includes a bit in a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) codebook report that indicates that one or more dropped communications are dropped. (See Khoshnevisan para. 63; HARQ codebook; para. 67 NACK) Khoshnevisan does not explicitly disclose wherein the collision could be of a PUSCH. However, Kang does disclose wherein the collision could be of a PUSCH. (See Kang para. 290; collision of PUSCH (e.g. a Physical Uplink Shared CHannel)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Khoshnevisan in view of Shao to include the teaching of wherein the collision could be of a PUSCH of Kang with the motivation being to detect collisions no matter what the channel being collided with and further to identify channels that are likely to collide and further to allow for the network to take corrective action to reduce wasteful resource allocations.
Regarding claim 25, Khoshnevisan in view of Gong discloses the first TRP of claim 18. Khoshnevisan discloses wherein the indication includes a feedback codebook that indicates which received grants had communication that was dropped and which received grants had communications that were transmitted. (See Khoshnevisan para. 63; HARQ codebook; para. 67; ACK/NACK; para. 59; granted resources) Khoshnevisan does not explicitly disclose wherein the channel used is a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH). However, Kang does disclose wherein the channel used is a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH). (See Kang para. 290; collision of PUSCH (e.g. Physical Uplink Shared CHannel)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Khoshnevisan to include the teaching of wherein the channel used is a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) of Kang with the motivation being to detect collisions no matter what the channel being collided with and further to identify channels that are likely to collide and further to allow for the network to take corrective action to reduce wasteful resource allocations and further to provide compatibility with all channels of the 3GPP suite of standards which saves time and money.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan (2020/0205141), and further in view of Gong (2020/0154467) and further in view of Wang (2013/0242814).
Regarding claim 26, Khoshnevisan in view of Gong discloses the first TRP of claim 18. Khoshnevisan does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication indicates a type of the scheduling collision. However, Wang does disclose wherein the indication indicates a type of the scheduling collision. (See Wang para. 77, fig. 9a; TPC bits to indicate a type 1 collision or not (e.g. a type of scheduling collision); see also para. 76; TPC bits set to indicate collisions between UEs) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Khoshnevisan to include the teaching of wherein the indication indicates a type of the scheduling collision of Wang with the motivation being to reduce collisions by finding the root cause to take corrective action (such as better coordination) to reduce network congestion/collisions and further to maximize limited resources by reducing collisions and retransmissions and further to inform the scheduler of the resource problems with reception of the transmission to allow for quick corrective action.
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.
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan (2020/0205141), and further in view of Gupta (2019/0254007).
Regarding claim 27, Khoshnevisan discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising: (See Khoshnevisan fig. 10; UE with processor executing an algorithm stored in memory)
receiving a first scheduling message from a first transmit receive point (TRP) and a second scheduling message from a second TRP; (See Khoshnevisan para. 32; Semi-persistent scheduling messages, SPS, to schedule a UE; para. 66, fig. 4; UE receives SPS1 from TRP1 and SPS2 from TRP2; see also para. 67)
detecting a scheduling collision of a first scheduled communication of the first scheduling message and a second scheduled communication of the second scheduling message overlapping in time; and (See Khoshnevisan para. 32; Semi-persistent scheduling messages, SPS, to schedule a UE; para. 67, fig. 4; UE determines (e.g. detects) that scheduled PDSCH transmission 424 would completely overlap (e.g. overlapping in time) with a transmission of SPS 410)
transmitting an indication of the scheduling collision wherein the indication selected from states of feedback that include at least an acknowledgment, a negative acknowledgment, and a drop indication. (See Khoshnevisan para. 67, fig. 4; UE determines (e.g. detects) that scheduled PDSCH transmission 424 would completely overlap (e.g. overlapping in time) with a transmission of SPS 410; UE may decode only the PDSCH transmission of the SPS configuration 410 and transmit a NACK (e.g. negative acknowledgment) for the PSCH transmission 424 of SPS2 and TRP2)
Khoshnevisan does not explicitly disclose wherein when the indication is sent to the TRP, the TRP selectively transmits or retransmits the scheduled communication. However, Gupta does disclose wherein when the indication is sent to the TRP, the TRP selectively transmits or retransmits the scheduled communication. (See Gupta para. 118; UE transmits a NACK to the TRP and the TRP retransmits/transmits) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Khoshnevisan to include the teaching of wherein when the indication is sent to the TRP, the TRP selectively transmits or retransmits the scheduled communication of Gupta with the motivation being to ensure reliable communication and further to ensure important data is received and further to guarantee complete and accurate delivery of data.
Regarding claim 28, Khoshnevisan in view of Gupta discloses the method of claim 27, wherein the indication includes a negative acknowledgement for a dropped scheduled communication. (See Khoshnevisan fig. 4, para. 67; UE sends a NACK)
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.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan (2020/0205141), and further in view of Gupta (2019/0254007) and further in view of Xue (2021/0219283).
Regarding claim 29, Khoshnevisan in view of Gupta discloses the method of claim 27. Khoshnevisan discloses sending a NACK. (See Khoshnevisan fig. 4, para. 67) Khoshnevisan does not explicitly discloses wherein the indication includes a drop indication for one or more dropped scheduled communications that is separate. However, Xue does disclose wherein the indication includes a drop indication for one or more dropped scheduled communications that is separate. (See Xue para. 169; UE determines that two SCIs are both reserving the same subband and transmitting an indication of collision (e.g. separate from NACK)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Khoshnevisan to include the teaching of wherein the indication includes a drop indication for one or more dropped scheduled communications that is separate of Xue with the motivation being to reduce collisions (e.g. a NACK lets a device know the other device know it did not receive the information but an indication of collision could be used to schedule at a different time to prevent future collisions) and further to prevent retransmissions at the same exact slot which likely will cause another collision and further to maximize limited resources by reducing collisions and retransmissions.
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.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan (2020/0205141), and further in view of Gong (2020/0154467).
Regarding claim 30, Khoshnevisan discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a first transmit receive point (TRP) of a network entity, comprising: (See Khoshnevisan fig. 1, para. 58; 102 base station providing TRP)
receiving an indication of a detection, at a user equipment (UE), of a scheduling collision of a first scheduled communication of a first scheduling message from the first TRP and a second scheduled communication of a second scheduling message from a second TRP, the indication being one of states of feedback that include at least an acknowledgement, a negative acknowledgement, and a drop indication and (See Khoshnevisan para. 67, fig. 4; UE determines (e.g. detects) that scheduled PDSCH transmission 424 would completely overlap (e.g. overlapping in time) with a transmission of SPS 410; UE may decode only the PDSCH transmission of the SPS configuration 410 and transmit a NACK, a negative acknowledgement, (e.g. an indication of scheduling collision between two TRPs) for the PSCH transmission 424 of SPS2 and TRP2 (e.g. first TRP))
Khoshnevisan does not explicitly disclose retransmit the communication based in part on the indication. However, Gong does disclose retransmit the communication based in part on the indication. (See Gong para. 417, 476; UE sends NACK; TRP retransmits based upon the NACK) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Khoshnevisan to include the teaching of retransmit the communication based in part on the indication of Gong with the motivation being to ensure receipt of important information (e.g. if the info is not received then it should be sent again if important) and further to provide reliable communication and further common sense (e.g. if the device says it did not receive the information, then it is logical to attempt to send it again).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J CLAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 pm 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, Huy D Vu can be reached at (571) 272-3155. 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.
/Stephen J Clawson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights