Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 10, 15, 16, 19, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 2023/0275703) (“Liu”).
For claims 1, 10, 19, and 20; Liu discloses: receiving downlink control information (DCI), wherein the DCI is used to indicate activation or deactivation of uplink feedback, wherein a radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) used for scrambling the DCI is used to indicate activation or deactivation of uplink feedback, wherein, when the RNTI used for scrambling the DCI is a first RNTI, the DCI is used to indicate activation of uplink feedback; or, when the RNTI used for scrambling the DCI is a second RNTI, the DCI is used to indicate deactivation of uplink feedback (paragraph 124-125: the UE may determine that the feedback information is disabled based on a dedicated RNTI that was used by the base station to scramble a CRC portion of the scheduling DCI. That is, a first one or more RNTI(s) may be set aside or otherwise associated with data transmissions using non-rateless coding when feedback information is enabled and a second one or more RNTI(s) may be set aside or otherwise associated with data transmissions using rateless coding when feedback information is disabled. The base station selecting a particular or dedicated RNTI to scramble the CRC portion of the scheduling DCI may carry or otherwise convey the indication that the data transmission that uses rateless coding is configured without feedback information).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Xing et al. (US 2022/0200744) (“Xing”).
For claim 6 and 15; Liu discloses the subject matter in claim 1 as described above in the office action.
Liu does not expressly disclose, but Xing from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein a format of the DCI is used to indicate activation or deactivation of uplink feedback (paragraph 184: different DCI formats are defined for the situation where the HARQ mechanism is to be activated and the situation where the HARQ mechanism is to be deactivated). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the signaling as described by Xing in the feedback configuration as described by Liu. The motivation is to improve dynamic feedback.
For claim 7 and 16; Liu discloses the subject matter in claim 6 as described above in the office action.
Liu does not expressly disclose, but Xing from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein when the format of the DCI is a first format, the DCI is used to indicate activation of uplink feedback; or, when the format of the DCI is a second format, the DCI is used to indicate deactivation of uplink feedback (paragraph 184: different DCI formats are defined for the situation where the HARQ mechanism is to be activated and the situation where the HARQ mechanism is to be deactivated). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the signaling as described by Xing in the feedback configuration as described by Liu. The motivation is to improve dynamic feedback.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pelletier et al. (US 2023/0027089); Pelletier discloses plurality of HARQ layers may be activated or deactivated by received downlink control information (DCI). In addition, the WTRU may transmit HARQ feedback to the node on the radio access network. In the method, the non-unicast downlink transmission method may be a multimedia broadcast multicast service (MBMS).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D BLANTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3933. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-6pm EST, Mon-Thu.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN D BLANTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights