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 .
This office action is in response to remarks filed on 12/04/2025.
Claims 1, 3-13, and 15-32 are pending and presented for examination. Claims 1, 13, 23, and 28 are amended. Claims 2 and 14 are canceled. Claims 31 and 32 are added.
Response to Amendments
Claims 1, 13, 23, and 28 have been considered based on amendments.
Claims 31 and 32 have been added, considered and presented for examination.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon (Elshafie, Li, and Andersson) cited in previous Office Action has been documented on the PTO-892 as requested by Applicant.
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 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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6, 10, 13, 21, 23, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (US10931412B2) (hereinafter "Liu") in view of Lenovo et al (R1-2100993) (hereinafter "Lenovo").
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising:
receiving an indication (Col. 9, Ln. 39-51: The eNB may … configure the minimum delay and the maximum delay through the UE's serving cell via a control signaling. Examples of the control signaling include, but are not limited to, radio resource control (RRC) signaling and layer 1 (L1) signaling.) of a maximum deferral time (Col. 9, Ln. 39-51: predefined deferral window) for deferring transmission of a feedback message after receiving a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) or physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) communication (Col. 9, Ln. 39-51: the eNB obtains the feedback of HARQ acknowledgment information within a predefined deferral window. The predefined deferral window specifies a minimum delay and a maximum delay for report of HARQ acknowledgment information. The eNB may predefine the minimum delay and the maximum delay, or semi-statically or dynamically configure the minimum delay and the maximum delay through the UE's serving cell via a control signaling. Examples of the control signaling include, but are not limited to, radio resource control (RRC) signaling and layer 1 (L1) signaling.);
receiving the PDCCH or PDSCH communication; and (Col. 9, Ln. 24-30: the eNB allocates to user equipment (UE) an uplink control channel resource for report of HARQ acknowledgment information related to downlink data transmission on an unlicensed carrier. Examples of the downlink data transmission include, but are not limited to, physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) transmission)
transmitting the feedback message for the PDCCH or PDSCH communication within the maximum deferral time if the feedback message is deferred beyond a scheduled time for transmission (Col. 10, Ln. 28-31: the UE reports the HARQ acknowledgment information within a predefined deferral window by using the uplink control channel resource. The predefined deferral window specifies a minimum delay and a maximum delay for report of HARQ acknowledgment information.).
Liu fails to disclose a method, comprising: wherein the indication of the maximum deferral time is defined in slots or sub-slots.
However, Lenovo discloses a method, comprising: wherein the indication of the maximum deferral time is defined in slots or sub-slots (Pg. 2: Thus, it may be beneficial that gNB configures a UE with the maximum allowed time duration of delaying HARQ-ACK feedback for a given SPS PDSCH or a set of consecutive SPS PDSCHs (from the same or different SPS configuration), taking into account survival time of applications and end-to-end latency. The time duration for delaying HARQ-ACK feedback with respect to original HARQ-ACK feedback timing can be indicated, for example, as a number of time units (e.g. slots, symbols).).
Liu and Lenovo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of techniques for maximum delayed HARQ--ACK 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 a motivation to combine the teachings of Liu with Lenovo to create a method, comprising: wherein the indication of the maximum deferral time is defined in slots or sub-slots.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to allow for precise, low-latency control of feedback information.
Regarding claim 6, Liu discloses the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is configured per semi- persistent scheduling configuration (Col. 9, Ln. 44-47: The eNB may predefine the minimum delay and the maximum delay, or semi-statically or dynamically configure the minimum delay and the maximum delay through the UE's serving cell via a control signaling.).
Regarding claim 10, Liu discloses the method, wherein the indication is received in a radio resource control message (Col. 9, Ln. 39-51: The eNB may … configure the minimum delay and the maximum delay through the UE's serving cell via a control signaling. Examples of the control signaling include, but are not limited to, radio resource control (RRC) signaling and layer 1 (L1) signaling.).
Regarding claim 13, Liu discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a base station, comprising:
transmitting, to a user equipment (UE), an indication (Col. 9, Ln. 39-51: The eNB may … configure the minimum delay and the maximum delay through the UE's serving cell via a control signaling. Examples of the control signaling include, but are not limited to, radio resource control (RRC) signaling and layer 1 (L1) signaling.) of a maximum deferral time (Col. 9, Ln. 39-51: predefined deferral window) for deferring transmission of a feedback message after the UE receives a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) or physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) communication from the base station (Col. 9, Ln. 39-51: the eNB obtains the feedback of HARQ acknowledgment information within a predefined deferral window. The predefined deferral window specifies a minimum delay and a maximum delay for report of HARQ acknowledgment information. The eNB may predefine the minimum delay and the maximum delay, or semi-statically or dynamically configure the minimum delay and the maximum delay through the UE's serving cell via a control signaling. Examples of the control signaling include, but are not limited to, radio resource control (RRC) signaling and layer 1 (L1) signaling.);
transmitting the PDCCH or PDSCH communication; and (Col. 9, Ln. 24-30: the eNB allocates to user equipment (UE) an uplink control channel resource for report of HARQ acknowledgment information related to downlink data transmission on an unlicensed carrier. Examples of the downlink data transmission include, but are not limited to, physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) transmission)
receiving the feedback message that is transmitted within the maximum deferral time and after a scheduled time for transmission (Col. 10, Ln. 28-31: the UE reports the HARQ acknowledgment information within a predefined deferral window by using the uplink control channel resource. The predefined deferral window specifies a minimum delay and a maximum delay for report of HARQ acknowledgment information.).
Liu fails to disclose a method, comprising: wherein the indication of the maximum deferral time is defined in slots or sub-slots.
However, Lenovo discloses a method, comprising: wherein the indication of the maximum deferral time is defined in slots or sub-slots (Pg. 2: Thus, it may be beneficial that gNB configures a UE with the maximum allowed time duration of delaying HARQ-ACK feedback for a given SPS PDSCH or a set of consecutive SPS PDSCHs (from the same or different SPS configuration), taking into account survival time of applications and end-to-end latency. The time duration for delaying HARQ-ACK feedback with respect to original HARQ-ACK feedback timing can be indicated, for example, as a number of time units (e.g. slots, symbols).).
Liu and Lenovo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of techniques for maximum delayed HARQ--ACK 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 a motivation to combine the teachings of Liu with Lenovo to create a method, comprising: wherein the indication of the maximum deferral time is defined in slots or sub-slots.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to allow for precise, low-latency control of feedback information.
Regarding claim 21, Liu discloses the method, wherein the indication is transmitted in a radio resource control message (Col. 9, Ln. 39-51: The eNB may … configure the minimum delay and the maximum delay through the UE's serving cell via a control signaling. Examples of the control signaling include, but are not limited to, radio resource control (RRC) signaling and layer 1 (L1) signaling.).
Regarding claim 23, Liu discloses a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising:
a memory; and (Col. 19, Ln. 40-43: An apparatus for reporting hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) acknowledgment information, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code)
one or more processors, coupled to the memory, configured to (Col. 19, Ln. 40-43: An apparatus for reporting hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) acknowledgment information, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code):
receive an indication of a maximum deferral time for deferring transmission of a feedback message after receiving a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) or physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) communication (Col. 9, Ln. 39-51: the eNB obtains the feedback of HARQ acknowledgment information within a predefined deferral window. The predefined deferral window specifies a minimum delay and a maximum delay for report of HARQ acknowledgment information. The eNB may predefine the minimum delay and the maximum delay, or semi-statically or dynamically configure the minimum delay and the maximum delay through the UE's serving cell via a control signaling. Examples of the control signaling include, but are not limited to, radio resource control (RRC) signaling and layer 1 (L1) signaling.);
receive the PDCCH or PDSCH communication; and (Col. 9, Ln. 24-30: the eNB allocates to user equipment (UE) an uplink control channel resource for report of HARQ acknowledgment information related to downlink data transmission on an unlicensed carrier. Examples of the downlink data transmission include, but are not limited to, physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) transmission)
transmit the feedback message for the PDCCH or PDSCH communication within the maximum deferral time if the feedback message is deferred beyond a scheduled time for transmission (Col. 10, Ln. 28-31: the UE reports the HARQ acknowledgment information within a predefined deferral window by using the uplink control channel resource. The predefined deferral window specifies a minimum delay and a maximum delay for report of HARQ acknowledgment information.).
Liu fails to disclose a user equipment, comprising: wherein the indication of the maximum deferral time is defined in slots or sub-slots.
However, Lenovo discloses a user equipment, comprising: wherein the indication of the maximum deferral time is defined in slots or sub-slots (Pg. 2: Thus, it may be beneficial that gNB configures a UE with the maximum allowed time duration of delaying HARQ-ACK feedback for a given SPS PDSCH or a set of consecutive SPS PDSCHs (from the same or different SPS configuration), taking into account survival time of applications and end-to-end latency. The time duration for delaying HARQ-ACK feedback with respect to original HARQ-ACK feedback timing can be indicated, for example, as a number of time units (e.g. slots, symbols).).
Liu and Lenovo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of techniques for maximum delayed HARQ--ACK 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 a motivation to combine the teachings of Liu with Lenovo to create a user equipment, comprising: wherein the indication of the maximum deferral time is defined in slots or sub-slots.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to allow for precise, low-latency control of feedback information.
Regarding claim 28, Liu discloses a base station for wireless communication, comprising:
a memory; and (Col. 19, Ln. 17-21: An apparatus for obtaining feedback of hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) acknowledgment information, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code)
one or more processors, coupled to the memory, configured to (Col. 19, Ln. 17-21: An apparatus for obtaining feedback of hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) acknowledgment information, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code):
transmit, to a user equipment (UE), an indication of a maximum deferral time for deferring transmission of a feedback message after the UE receives a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) or physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) communication from the base station (Col. 9, Ln. 39-51: the eNB obtains the feedback of HARQ acknowledgment information within a predefined deferral window. The predefined deferral window specifies a minimum delay and a maximum delay for report of HARQ acknowledgment information. The eNB may predefine the minimum delay and the maximum delay, or semi-statically or dynamically configure the minimum delay and the maximum delay through the UE's serving cell via a control signaling. Examples of the control signaling include, but are not limited to, radio resource control (RRC) signaling and layer 1 (L1) signaling.);
transmit the PDCCH or PDSCH communication; and (Col. 9, Ln. 24-30: the eNB allocates to user equipment (UE) an uplink control channel resource for report of HARQ acknowledgment information related to downlink data transmission on an unlicensed carrier. Examples of the downlink data transmission include, but are not limited to, physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) transmission)
receive the feedback message that is transmitted within the maximum deferral time and after a scheduled time for transmission (Col. 10, Ln. 28-31: the UE reports the HARQ acknowledgment information within a predefined deferral window by using the uplink control channel resource. The predefined deferral window specifies a minimum delay and a maximum delay for report of HARQ acknowledgment information.).
Liu fails to disclose a base station, comprising: wherein the indication of the maximum deferral time is defined in slots or sub-slots.
However, Lenovo discloses a base station, comprising: wherein the indication of the maximum deferral time is defined in slots or sub-slots (Pg. 2: Thus, it may be beneficial that gNB configures a UE with the maximum allowed time duration of delaying HARQ-ACK feedback for a given SPS PDSCH or a set of consecutive SPS PDSCHs (from the same or different SPS configuration), taking into account survival time of applications and end-to-end latency. The time duration for delaying HARQ-ACK feedback with respect to original HARQ-ACK feedback timing can be indicated, for example, as a number of time units (e.g. slots, symbols).).
Liu and Lenovo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of techniques for maximum delayed HARQ--ACK 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 a motivation to combine the teachings of Liu with Lenovo to create a base station, comprising: wherein the indication of the maximum deferral time is defined in slots or sub-slots.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to allow for precise, low-latency control of feedback information.
Claims 3-4, 15, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Lenovo, as applied to claims 1, 13, 23, or 28 above, and further in view of Carlson et al (US20020159396A1) (hereinafter "Carlson").
Regarding claim 3, Liu, as modified by Lenovo, fails to disclose the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is limited by a packet expiration time.
However, Carlson discloses the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is limited by a packet expiration time (Col. 7, Ln. 3-6: if the use of delayed ACKs is enabled and the delay in sending an ACK in response to a first data packet exceeds a predetermined time period, use of delayed ACKs is disabled.).
Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Carlson are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of techniques for adaptive delayed acknowledgment.
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 motivation to combine the teachings of Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Carlson to create the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is limited by a packet expiration time.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to determine when delayed ACKs will enhance or inhibit communication throughput.
Regarding claim 4, Liu, as modified by Lenovo, fails to disclose the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is deactivated after a packet expiration time.
However, Carlson discloses the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is deactivated after a packet expiration time (Col. 7, Ln. 3-6: if the use of delayed ACKs is enabled and the delay in sending an ACK in response to a first data packet exceeds a predetermined time period, use of delayed ACKs is disabled.).
Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Carlson are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of techniques for adaptive delayed acknowledgment.
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 motivation to combine the teachings of Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Carlson to create the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is deactivated after a packet expiration time.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to determine when delayed ACKs will enhance or inhibit communication throughput.
Regarding claim 15, Liu, as modified by Lenovo, fails to disclose the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is limited by a packet expiration time.
However, Carlson discloses the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is limited by a packet expiration time (Col. 7, Ln. 3-6: if the use of delayed ACKs is enabled and the delay in sending an ACK in response to a first data packet exceeds a predetermined time period, use of delayed ACKs is disabled.).
Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Carlson are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of techniques for adaptive delayed acknowledgment.
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 motivation to combine the teachings of Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Carlson to create the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is limited by a packet expiration time.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to determine when delayed ACKs will enhance or inhibit communication throughput.
Regarding claim 24, Liu, as modified by Lenovo, fails to disclose the UE, wherein the maximum deferral time is limited by a packet expiration time.
However, Carlson discloses the UE, wherein the maximum deferral time is limited by a packet expiration time (Col. 7, Ln. 3-6: if the use of delayed ACKs is enabled and the delay in sending an ACK in response to a first data packet exceeds a predetermined time period, use of delayed ACKs is disabled.).
Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Carlson are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of techniques for adaptive delayed acknowledgment.
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 motivation to combine the teachings of Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Carlson to create the UE, wherein the maximum deferral time is limited by a packet expiration time.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to determine when delayed ACKs will enhance or inhibit communication throughput.
Regarding claim 25, Liu, as modified by Lenovo, fails to disclose the UE, wherein the maximum deferral time is deactivated after a packet expiration time.
However, Carlson discloses the UE, wherein the maximum deferral time is deactivated after a packet expiration time (Col. 7, Ln. 3-6: if the use of delayed ACKs is enabled and the delay in sending an ACK in response to a first data packet exceeds a predetermined time period, use of delayed ACKs is disabled.).
Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Carlson are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of techniques for adaptive delayed acknowledgment.
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 motivation to combine the teachings of Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Carlson to create the UE, wherein the maximum deferral time is deactivated after a packet expiration time.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to determine when delayed ACKs will enhance or inhibit communication throughput.
Claims 5 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Lenovo, as applied to claims 1, 13, 23, or 28 above, and further in view of Zou et al (US20190150180A1) (hereinafter "Zou ‘180").
Regarding claim 5, Liu, as modified by Lenovo, fails to disclose the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is deactivated after the UE transmits a negative acknowledgment as the feedback message.
However, Zou ‘180 discloses the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is deactivated after the UE transmits a negative acknowledgment as the feedback message ([0095] The timer T could be defined from the point of transmitting the UL transmission or from the point of receiving the UL grant associated with timer T. [0096] The feedback associated with the timer could be an ACK, a NACK, a new data indicator or a new grant. It follows that if NACK is received, either by itself or in the form of an UL grant scheduling a retransmission, the timer T is reset.).
Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Zou ‘180 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of data transmission and 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 a motivation to combine the teachings of Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Zou ‘180 to create the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is deactivated after the UE transmits a negative acknowledgment as the feedback message.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to eliminate the time spent waiting for a response if a failed transmission has already been established.
Regarding claim 26, Liu, as modified by Lenovo, fails to disclose the UE, wherein the maximum deferral time is deactivated after the UE transmits a negative acknowledgment as the feedback message.
However, Zou ‘180 discloses the UE, wherein the maximum deferral time is deactivated after the UE transmits a negative acknowledgment as the feedback message ([0095] The timer T could be defined from the point of transmitting the UL transmission or from the point of receiving the UL grant associated with timer T. [0096] The feedback associated with the timer could be an ACK, a NACK, a new data indicator or a new grant. It follows that if NACK is received, either by itself or in the form of an UL grant scheduling a retransmission, the timer T is reset.).
Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Zou ‘180 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of data transmission and 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 a motivation to combine the teachings of Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Zou ‘180 to create the UE, wherein the maximum deferral time is deactivated after the UE transmits a negative acknowledgment as the feedback message.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to eliminate the time spent waiting for a response if a failed transmission has already been established.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Lenovo, as applied to claims 1, 13, 23, or 28 above, and further in view of Ying et al (US20240187141A1) (hereinafter "Ying").
Regarding claim 7, Liu, as modified by Lenovo, fails to disclose the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is configured per physical uplink control channel group.
However, Ying discloses the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is configured per physical uplink control channel group ([0279] the deferring of SPS HARQ-ACK dropped due to TDD specific collisions may be configured by RRC per PUCCH cell group (e.g., a higher layer parameter SPS-ACK-defer included in PUCCH RRC configuration PUCCH-config may indicate whether the deferring of SPS HARQ-ACK dropped due to TDD specific collisions is used or not).).
Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Ying are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of multiplexing of deferred HARQ-ACK.
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 motivation to combine the teachings of Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Ying to create the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is configured per physical uplink control channel group.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to reduce processing overhead in instances where the UE may be associated with several cells.
Regarding claim 18, Liu, as modified by Lenovo, fails to disclose the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is configured per physical uplink control channel group.
However, Ying discloses the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is configured per physical uplink control channel group ([0279] the deferring of SPS HARQ-ACK dropped due to TDD specific collisions may be configured by RRC per PUCCH cell group (e.g., a higher layer parameter SPS-ACK-defer included in PUCCH RRC configuration PUCCH-config may indicate whether the deferring of SPS HARQ-ACK dropped due to TDD specific collisions is used or not).).
Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Ying are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of multiplexing of deferred HARQ-ACK.
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 motivation to combine the teachings of Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Ying to create the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is configured per physical uplink control channel group.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to reduce processing overhead in instances where the UE may be associated with several cells.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Lenovo, as applied to claims 1, 13, 23, or 28 above, and further in view of Mukherjee et al (US20200351861A1) (hereinafter "Mukherjee").
Regarding claim 8, Liu, as modified by Lenovo, fails to disclose the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is configured per hybrid automatic repeat request process identifier.
However, Mukherjee discloses the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is configured per hybrid automatic repeat request process identifier ([0030] The UCI request, which in some embodiments is a command, may, and sometimes does, convey a request for identified HARQ ACK/NACKs, e.g., a request for delayed ACK/NACKs from a UE corresponding to identified HARQ process identifiers included in the request).
Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Mukherjee are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of techniques for delayed HARQ ACK/NACK and uplink control information multiplexing.
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 motivation to combine the teachings of Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Mukherjee to create the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is configured per hybrid automatic repeat request process identifier.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to provide differentiation of time slots associated with different HARQ processes and reduce the likelihood of collisions of retransmissions for different HARQ processes.
Regarding claim 19, Liu, as modified by Lenovo, fails to disclose the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is configured per hybrid automatic repeat request process identifier.
However, Mukherjee discloses the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is configured per hybrid automatic repeat request process identifier ([0030] The UCI request, which in some embodiments is a command, may, and sometimes does, convey a request for identified HARQ ACK/NACKs, e.g., a request for delayed ACK/NACKs from a UE corresponding to identified HARQ process identifiers included in the request).
Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Mukherjee are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of techniques for delayed HARQ ACK/NACK and uplink control information multiplexing.
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 motivation to combine the teachings of Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Mukherjee to create the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is configured per hybrid automatic repeat request process identifier.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to provide differentiation of time slots associated with different HARQ processes and reduce the likelihood of collisions of retransmissions for different HARQ processes.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Lenovo, as applied to claims 1, 13, 23, or 28 above, and further in view of Bhattad et al (US20180376498A1) (hereinafter "Bhattad").
Regarding claim 9, Liu, as modified by Lenovo, fails to disclose the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is configured per transport block.
However, Bhattad discloses the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is configured per transport block ([0082] if the PDSCH conveyed the data in a small transport block, UE 115-b may select a short delay for sending the ACK. If the PDSCH conveyed the data in a large transport block, UE 115-b may select a long delay for sending the ACK. In some examples the delay may be proportional (e.g., linearly proportional) to the size of the transport block(s) used to convey the data.).
Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Bhattad are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of optimization of acknowledgement delay.
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 motivation to combine the teachings of Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Bhattad to create the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is configured per transport block.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to allow the UE to spend more time in low power mode and increase its power savings, or alternatively, the UE may spend more time sending or receiving other signals, which may increase throughput.
Regarding claim 20, Liu, as modified by Lenovo, fails to disclose the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is configured per transport block.
However, Bhattad discloses the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is configured per transport block ([0082] if the PDSCH conveyed the data in a small transport block, UE 115-b may select a short delay for sending the ACK. If the PDSCH conveyed the data in a large transport block, UE 115-b may select a long delay for sending the ACK. In some examples the delay may be proportional (e.g., linearly proportional) to the size of the transport block(s) used to convey the data.).
Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Bhattad are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of optimization of acknowledgement delay.
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 motivation to combine the teachings of Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Bhattad to create the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is configured per transport block.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to allow the UE to spend more time in low power mode and increase its power savings, or alternatively, the UE may spend more time sending or receiving other signals, which may increase throughput.
Claims 12, 16, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Lenovo, as applied to claims 1, 13, 23, or 28 above, and further in view of Chien et al (US20230112147A1) (hereinafter "Chien").
Regarding claim 12, Liu, as modified by Lenovo, fails to disclose the method, further comprising: receiving an indication to deactivate the maximum deferral time and deactivating the maximum deferral time.
However, Chien discloses the method, further comprising: receiving an indication to deactivate the maximum deferral time ([0277] The maximum number of slot or sub-slot for deferred SPS HARQ-ACK transmission may be referred to as maximum deferral time. [0278] Configuration for deferred HARQ-ACK transmission may comprise a corresponding deferral range of K1_offset and/or activation or deactivation of SPS HARQ-ACK deferral. [0281] Activation or deactivation of SPS HARQ-ACK deferral and the maximum deferred value (i.e., maximum value of K1_offset or maximum value of K1_adj) can be jointly encoded in RRC configuration or in a DCI field.);
and deactivating the maximum deferral time ([0277] The maximum number of slot or sub-slot for deferred SPS HARQ-ACK transmission may be referred to as maximum deferral time. [0278] Configuration for deferred HARQ-ACK transmission may comprise a corresponding deferral range of K1_offset and/or activation or deactivation of SPS HARQ-ACK deferral. [0281] Activation or deactivation of SPS HARQ-ACK deferral and the maximum deferred value (i.e., maximum value of K1_offset or maximum value of K1_adj) can be jointly encoded in RRC configuration or in a DCI field.).
Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Chien are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of enhancements for hybrid automatic repeat request processing.
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 motivation to combine the teachings of Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Chien to create the method, further comprising: receiving an indication to deactivate the maximum deferral time and deactivating the maximum deferral time.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to have an indication to disable delayed feedback to improve power consumption or reduce interference.
Regarding claim 16, Liu, as modified by Lenovo, fails to disclose the method, further comprising transmitting an indication to deactivate the maximum deferral time.
However, Chien discloses the method, further comprising transmitting an indication to deactivate the maximum deferral time ([0277] The maximum number of slot or sub-slot for deferred SPS HARQ-ACK transmission may be referred to as maximum deferral time. [0278] Configuration for deferred HARQ-ACK transmission may comprise a corresponding deferral range of K1_offset and/or activation or deactivation of SPS HARQ-ACK deferral. [0281] Activation or deactivation of SPS HARQ-ACK deferral and the maximum deferred value (i.e., maximum value of K1_offset or maximum value of K1_adj) can be jointly encoded in RRC configuration or in a DCI field.).
Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Chien are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of enhancements for hybrid automatic repeat request processing.
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 motivation to combine the teachings of Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Chien to create the method, further comprising transmitting an indication to deactivate the maximum deferral time.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to have an indication to disable delayed feedback to improve power consumption or reduce interference.
Regarding claim 29, Liu, as modified by Lenovo, fails to disclose the base station, wherein the one or more processors are configured to transmit an indication to deactivate the maximum deferral time.
However, Chien discloses the base station, wherein the one or more processors are configured to transmit an indication to deactivate the maximum deferral time ([0277] The maximum number of slot or sub-slot for deferred SPS HARQ-ACK transmission may be referred to as maximum deferral time. [0278] Configuration for deferred HARQ-ACK transmission may comprise a corresponding deferral range of K1_offset and/or activation or deactivation of SPS HARQ-ACK deferral. [0281] Activation or deactivation of SPS HARQ-ACK deferral and the maximum deferred value (i.e., maximum value of K1_offset or maximum value of K1_adj) can be jointly encoded in RRC configuration or in a DCI field.).
Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Chien are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of enhancements for hybrid automatic repeat request processing.
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 motivation to combine the teachings of Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Chien to create the base station, wherein the one or more processors are configured to transmit an indication to deactivate the maximum deferral time.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to have an indication to disable delayed feedback to improve power consumption or reduce interference.
Claims 11, 22, 27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Lenovo, as applied to claims 1, 13, 23, or 28 above, and further in view of Zou et al (WO2018082445A1) (hereinafter "Zou ‘445").
Regarding claim 11, Liu, as modified by Lenovo, fails to disclose the method, further comprising: receiving an updated maximum deferral time via a radio resource control message, a medium access control control element (MAC-CE), or downlink control information; and transmitting a next feedback message for a next PDCCH or PDSCH communication within the updated maximum deferral time if the next feedback message is deferred beyond a scheduled time for transmission.
However, Zou ‘445 discloses the method, further comprising: receiving an updated maximum deferral time via a radio resource control message, a medium access control control element (MAC-CE), or downlink control information; and (Pg. 15: Step 1: The base station determines the change of the uplink and downlink ACK/NACK feedback delays according to the service requirement, the change of the UE uplink transmission time advancement, and the like, and notifies the UE of the changed ACK/NACK feedback delay information. Optionally, the base station may send an ACK/NACK feedback delay update indication message to the UE to notify the UE of the updated ACK/NACK feedback delay information. Optionally, the message may be included in RRC signaling.)
transmitting a next feedback message for a next PDCCH or PDSCH communication within the updated maximum deferral time if the next feedback message is deferred beyond a scheduled time for transmission (Pg. 15-16: Step 2: Optionally, the UE sends an ACK/NACK feedback delay update acknowledgement message to the base station to confirm that the indication information sent by the base station in step 1 is correctly received. ... Optionally, the UE may include, in the confirmation message, a start application time indication, indicating The start time of the ACK/NACK feedback delay information notified by the UE application. Optionally, the foregoing start application time indication may be a specific time indication. … Optionally, the foregoing start application time indication may indicate a time interval, that is, start to apply the time interval, and after receiving the foregoing message, the UE starts to perform corresponding feedback with the notified uplink ACK/NACK feedback delay after the time interval is received. / or receive corresponding feedback with the delayed downlink ACK/NACK feedback delay. … Step 3: The base station and the UE follow the indicated downlink and uplink ACK/NACK after receiving the data. The feedback delay sends a downlink ACK/NACK. … Optionally, the UE starts to apply the ACK/NACK feedback delay indicated by the base station at the start application time indicated by the base station.).
Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Zou ‘445 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of sending a feedback indication within a time range corresponding to the sending indication.
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 motivation to combine the teachings of Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Zou ‘445 to create the method, further comprising: receiving an updated maximum deferral time via a radio resource control message, a medium access control control element (MAC-CE), or downlink control information; and transmitting a next feedback message for a next PDCCH or PDSCH communication within the updated maximum deferral time if the next feedback message is deferred beyond a scheduled time for transmission.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to reduce the waiting time for acknowledgement feedback.
Regarding claim 22, Liu, as modified by Lenovo, fails to disclose the method, further comprising: transmitting an updated maximum deferral time via a radio resource control message, a medium access control control element (MAC-CE), or downlink control information; and receiving a next feedback message for a next PDCCH or PDSCH communication, wherein the next feedback message is transmitted within the updated maximum deferral time and after a scheduled time for transmission.
However, Zou ‘445 discloses the method, further comprising: transmitting an updated maximum deferral time via a radio resource control message, a medium access control control element (MAC-CE), or downlink control information; and (Pg. 15: Step 1: The base station determines the change of the uplink and downlink ACK/NACK feedback delays according to the service requirement, the change of the UE uplink transmission time advancement, and the like, and notifies the UE of the changed ACK/NACK feedback delay information. Optionally, the base station may send an ACK/NACK feedback delay update indication message to the UE to notify the UE of the updated ACK/NACK feedback delay information. Optionally, the message may be included in RRC signaling.)
receiving a next feedback message for a next PDCCH or PDSCH communication, wherein the next feedback message is transmitted within the updated maximum deferral time and after a scheduled time for transmission (Pg. 15-16: Step 2: Optionally, the UE sends an ACK/NACK feedback delay update acknowledgement message to the base station to confirm that the indication information sent by the base station in step 1 is correctly received. ... Optionally, the UE may include, in the confirmation message, a start application time indication, indicating The start time of the ACK/NACK feedback delay information notified by the UE application. Optionally, the foregoing start application time indication may be a specific time indication. … Optionally, the foregoing start application time indication may indicate a time interval, that is, start to apply the time interval, and after receiving the foregoing message, the UE starts to perform corresponding feedback with the notified uplink ACK/NACK feedback delay after the time interval is received. / or receive corresponding feedback with the delayed downlink ACK/NACK feedback delay. … Step 3: The base station and the UE follow the indicated downlink and uplink ACK/NACK after receiving the data. The feedback delay sends a downlink ACK/NACK. … Optionally, the UE starts to apply the ACK/NACK feedback delay indicated by the base station at the start application time indicated by the base station.).
Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Zou ‘445 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of sending a feedback indication within a time range corresponding to the sending indication.
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 motivation to combine the teachings of Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Zou ‘445 to create the method, further comprising: transmitting an updated maximum deferral time via a radio resource control message, a medium access control control element (MAC-CE), or downlink control information; and receiving a next feedback message for a next PDCCH or PDSCH communication, wherein the next feedback message is transmitted within the updated maximum deferral time and after a scheduled time for transmission.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to reduce the waiting time for acknowledgement feedback.
Regarding claim 27, Liu, as modified by Lenovo, fails to disclose the UE, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive an updated maximum deferral time via a radio resource control message, a
medium access control control element (MAC-CE), or downlink control information; and transmit a next feedback message for a next PDCCH or PDSCH communication within the updated maximum deferral time if the next feedback message is deferred beyond a scheduled time for transmission.
However, Zou ‘445 discloses the UE, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
receive an updated maximum deferral time via a radio resource control message, a
medium access control control element (MAC-CE), or downlink control information; and (Pg. 15: Step 1: The base station determines the change of the uplink and downlink ACK/NACK feedback delays according to the service requirement, the change of the UE uplink transmission time advancement, and the like, and notifies the UE of the changed ACK/NACK feedback delay information. Optionally, the base station may send an ACK/NACK feedback delay update indication message to the UE to notify the UE of the updated ACK/NACK feedback delay information. Optionally, the message may be included in RRC signaling.)
transmit a next feedback message for a next PDCCH or PDSCH communication within the updated maximum deferral time if the next feedback message is deferred beyond a scheduled time for transmission (Pg. 15-16: Step 2: Optionally, the UE sends an ACK/NACK feedback delay update acknowledgement message to the base station to confirm that the indication information sent by the base station in step 1 is correctly received. ... Optionally, the UE may include, in the confirmation message, a start application time indication, indicating The start time of the ACK/NACK feedback delay information notified by the UE application. Optionally, the foregoing start application time indication may be a specific time indication. … Optionally, the foregoing start application time indication may indicate a time interval, that is, start to apply the time interval, and after receiving the foregoing message, the UE starts to perform corresponding feedback with the notified uplink ACK/NACK feedback delay after the time interval is received. / or receive corresponding feedback with the delayed downlink ACK/NACK feedback delay. … Step 3: The base station and the UE follow the indicated downlink and uplink ACK/NACK after receiving the data. The feedback delay sends a downlink ACK/NACK. … Optionally, the UE starts to apply the ACK/NACK feedback delay indicated by the base station at the start application time indicated by the base station.).
Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Zou ‘445 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of sending a feedback indication within a time range corresponding to the sending indication.
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 motivation to combine the teachings of Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Zou ‘445 to create the UE, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive an updated maximum deferral time via a radio resource control message, a medium access control control element (MAC-CE), or downlink control information; and transmit a next feedback message for a next PDCCH or PDSCH communication within the updated maximum deferral time if the next feedback message is deferred beyond a scheduled time for transmission.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to reduce the waiting time for acknowledgement feedback.
Regarding claim 30, Liu, as modified by Lenovo, fails to disclose the base station, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: transmit an updated maximum deferral time via a radio resource control message, a medium access control control element (MAC-CE), or downlink control information; and receive a next feedback message for a next PDCCH or PDSCH communication, wherein the next feedback message is transmitted within the updated maximum deferral time and after a scheduled time for transmission.
However, Zou ‘445 discloses the base station, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
transmit an updated maximum deferral time via a radio resource control message, a
medium access control control element (MAC-CE), or downlink control information; and (Pg. 15: Step 1: The base station determines the change of the uplink and downlink ACK/NACK feedback delays according to the service requirement, the change of the UE uplink transmission time advancement, and the like, and notifies the UE of the changed ACK/NACK feedback delay information. Optionally, the base station may send an ACK/NACK feedback delay update indication message to the UE to notify the UE of the updated ACK/NACK feedback delay information. Optionally, the message may be included in RRC signaling.)
receive a next feedback message for a next PDCCH or PDSCH communication, wherein the next feedback message is transmitted within the updated maximum deferral time and after a scheduled time for transmission (Pg. 15-16: Step 2: Optionally, the UE sends an ACK/NACK feedback delay update acknowledgement message to the base station to confirm that the indication information sent by the base station in step 1 is correctly received. ... Optionally, the UE may include, in the confirmation message, a start application time indication, indicating The start time of the ACK/NACK feedback delay information notified by the UE application. Optionally, the foregoing start application time indication may be a specific time indication. … Optionally, the foregoing start application time indication may indicate a time interval, that is, start to apply the time interval, and after receiving the foregoing message, the UE starts to perform corresponding feedback with the notified uplink ACK/NACK feedback delay after the time interval is received. / or receive corresponding feedback with the delayed downlink ACK/NACK feedback delay. … Step 3: The base station and the UE follow the indicated downlink and uplink ACK/NACK after receiving the data. The feedback delay sends a downlink ACK/NACK. … Optionally, the UE starts to apply the ACK/NACK feedback delay indicated by the base station at the start application time indicated by the base station.).
Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Zou ‘445 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of sending a feedback indication within a time range corresponding to the sending indication.
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 motivation to combine the teachings of Liu, as modified by Lenovo, and Zou ‘445 to create the base station, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: transmit an updated maximum deferral time via a radio resource control message, a medium access control control element (MAC-CE), or downlink control information; and receive a next feedback message for a next PDCCH or PDSCH communication, wherein the next feedback message is transmitted within the updated maximum deferral time and after a scheduled time for transmission.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to reduce the waiting time for acknowledgement feedback.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 13, 23, and 28 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to D. Little whose telephone number is (571)272-5748. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/D LITTLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419