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 04/23/2026.
Claims 1, 3-13, and 15-32 are pending and presented for examination. Claims 1, 11, 13, 22, 23, 27, 28, and 30 are amended.
Response to Amendments
Claims 1, 11, 13, 22, 23, 27, 28, and 30 have been considered based on amendments.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/19/2026 has been entered.
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, 11, 13, 22, 23, 27, 28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhattad et al (US20210036811A1) (hereinafter "Bhattad '811") in view of Hosseini et al (US20200314900A1) (hereinafter "Hosseini").
Regarding claim 1, Bhattad '811 discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising:
receiving an indication ([0084] Call flow 400 also illustrates the base station 404 sending CW parameters or information to the UE 402 in 452.) of a maximum deferral time for deferring transmission of a feedback message ([0155] The aspects described in connection with FIGS. 4-12 that are described for a base station to make determinations about CWs may also be employed by a UE. Whereas a base station may know when the ACK/NACK feedback is expected in response to a downlink transmission, a UE may not be aware of when ACK/NACK feedback is expected from a base station in response to an uplink transmission. To address this, in one example, the UE may enhance the above-noted techniques by utilizing a maximum delay time to determine how long to wait for feedback. The network may configure a maximum delay for the UE to apply in making determinations about CW updates. The maximum delay value may be fixed or predetermined, or may be based on a predetermined information.) after receiving a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) communication ([0147] Referring to FIG. 12, at 1202, the device transmits multiple data transmissions during at least one COT (e.g., PDSCH if the method is performed by a base station or PUSCH if the method is performed by a UE).), wherein the indication of the maximum deferral time is defined in slots or sub-slots ([0145] When a plurality of ACK/NACK feedback is received for different COTs, the base station may process the plurality of feedback using a maximum delay time to determine which of the plurality feedback to consider. This maximum delay time can include a timeout after which arriving ACK/NACK may no longer be considered for CW update. … The maximum delay time may be in units of slots, units of COTs, units of time or other units.);
receiving the PDSCH communication; and ([0083] The downlink transmissions may be, for example, PDCCH or PDSCH transmissions.)
Bhattad '811 fails to disclose a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising: transmitting the feedback message for the PDSCH communication within the maximum deferral time if the feedback message is deferred beyond a scheduled time for transmission, wherein a resource for the feedback message is selected based at least in part on a collision resolution procedure.
However, Hosseini discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising: transmitting the feedback message for the PDSCH communication within the maximum deferral time if the feedback message is deferred beyond a scheduled time for transmission, wherein a resource for the feedback message is selected based at least in part on a collision resolution procedure ([0005] Generally, the described techniques allow a user equipment (UE) to prioritize transmissions in the event that uplink transmissions for different channels or different priorities have overlapping time or frequency resources based on a collision resolution configuration. The collision resolution configuration may be preconfigured at the UE or indicated to the UE from a network node (e.g., a base station). [0111] Some options for handling the collision between multiple overlapping channels (e.g., two or more channels of the same priority) may include resolving the collisions among the channels of the same priority first (e.g., feedback information transmissions first, and then control information), among the channels of the same service type first (e.g., eMBB channels first, and then eURLLC channel(s)), or across all of the channels of all priorities at once. ... In some examples, collisions may be resolved by dropping or rescheduling overlapping information from the lower priority transmission(s) or channel(s) in consideration of the higher priority transmission(s) or channel(s), or by multiplexing or piggybacking overlapping information from a first priority transmission(s) or channel(s) with a second priority transmission(s) or channel(s). … In some examples, channel priority may be assigned based on physical channel type, and a shared channel (e.g., PUSCH) may have a higher priority than a control channel (e.g., PUCCH).).
Bhattad '811 and Hosseini are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor for handling transmissions in wireless communications that collide with one another.
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 Bhattad '811 with Hosseini to create a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising: transmitting the feedback message for the PDSCH communication within the maximum deferral time if the feedback message is deferred beyond a scheduled time for transmission, wherein a resource for the feedback message is selected based at least in part on a collision resolution procedure.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to adjust or update contention window size/value based on whether feedback for a transmission is received or could be scheduled during a channel occupancy time.
Regarding claim 11, Bhattad '811 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 ([0279] The method of any of examples 40 to 43, wherein the delay value comprises at least one of a preconfigured delay value, a configured delay value that is configured through radio resource control (RRC) downlink control information (DCI).).
Bhattad '811 fails to disclose the method, further comprising: transmitting a next feedback message for a next PDSCH communication within the updated maximum deferral time if the next feedback message is deferred beyond a scheduled time for transmission.
However, Hosseini discloses the method, further comprising: transmitting a next feedback message for a next PDSCH communication within the updated maximum deferral time if the next feedback message is deferred beyond a scheduled time for transmission ([0005] Generally, the described techniques allow a user equipment (UE) to prioritize transmissions in the event that uplink transmissions for different channels or different priorities have overlapping time or frequency resources based on a collision resolution configuration. The collision resolution configuration may be preconfigured at the UE or indicated to the UE from a network node (e.g., a base station). [0111] Some options for handling the collision between multiple overlapping channels (e.g., two or more channels of the same priority) may include resolving the collisions among the channels of the same priority first (e.g., feedback information transmissions first, and then control information), among the channels of the same service type first (e.g., eMBB channels first, and then eURLLC channel(s)), or across all of the channels of all priorities at once. ... In some examples, collisions may be resolved by dropping or rescheduling overlapping information from the lower priority transmission(s) or channel(s) in consideration of the higher priority transmission(s) or channel(s), or by multiplexing or piggybacking overlapping information from a first priority transmission(s) or channel(s) with a second priority transmission(s) or channel(s). … In some examples, channel priority may be assigned based on physical channel type, and a shared channel (e.g., PUSCH) may have a higher priority than a control channel (e.g., PUCCH).).
Bhattad '811 and Hosseini are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor for handling transmissions in wireless communications that collide with one another.
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 Bhattad '811 with Hosseini to create the method, further comprising: transmitting a next feedback message for a next 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 adjust or update contention window size/value based on whether feedback for a transmission is received or could be scheduled during a channel occupancy time.
Regarding claim 13, Bhattad '811 discloses method of wireless communication performed by a base station, comprising:
transmitting, 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 shared channel (PDSCH) communication from the base station, wherein the indication of the maximum deferral time is defined in slots or sub-slots ([0084] Call flow 400 also illustrates the base station 404 sending CW parameters or information to the UE 402 in 452. [0155] The aspects described in connection with FIGS. 4-12 that are described for a base station to make determinations about CWs may also be employed by a UE. Whereas a base station may know when the ACK/NACK feedback is expected in response to a downlink transmission, a UE may not be aware of when ACK/NACK feedback is expected from a base station in response to an uplink transmission. To address this, in one example, the UE may enhance the above-noted techniques by utilizing a maximum delay time to determine how long to wait for feedback. The network may configure a maximum delay for the UE to apply in making determinations about CW updates. The maximum delay value may be fixed or predetermined, or may be based on a predetermined information. [0147] Referring to FIG. 12, at 1202, the device transmits multiple data transmissions during at least one COT (e.g., PDSCH if the method is performed by a base station or PUSCH if the method is performed by a UE). [0145] When a plurality of ACK/NACK feedback is received for different COTs, the base station may process the plurality of feedback using a maximum delay time to determine which of the plurality feedback to consider. This maximum delay time can include a timeout after which arriving ACK/NACK may no longer be considered for CW update. … The maximum delay time may be in units of slots, units of COTs, units of time or other units.);
transmitting the PDSCH communication ([0083] The downlink transmissions may be, for example, PDCCH or PDSCH transmissions.).
Bhattad '811 fails to disclose a method of wireless communication performed by a base station, comprising: receiving the feedback message that is transmitted within the maximum deferral time and after a scheduled time for transmission, wherein a resource for the feedback message is selected based at least in part on a collision resolution procedure.
However, Hosseini discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a base station, comprising: receiving the feedback message that is transmitted within the maximum deferral time and after a scheduled time for transmission, wherein a resource for the feedback message is selected based at least in part on a collision resolution procedure ([0005] Generally, the described techniques allow a user equipment (UE) to prioritize transmissions in the event that uplink transmissions for different channels or different priorities have overlapping time or frequency resources based on a collision resolution configuration. The collision resolution configuration may be preconfigured at the UE or indicated to the UE from a network node (e.g., a base station). [0111] Some options for handling the collision between multiple overlapping channels (e.g., two or more channels of the same priority) may include resolving the collisions among the channels of the same priority first (e.g., feedback information transmissions first, and then control information), among the channels of the same service type first (e.g., eMBB channels first, and then eURLLC channel(s)), or across all of the channels of all priorities at once. ... In some examples, collisions may be resolved by dropping or rescheduling overlapping information from the lower priority transmission(s) or channel(s) in consideration of the higher priority transmission(s) or channel(s), or by multiplexing or piggybacking overlapping information from a first priority transmission(s) or channel(s) with a second priority transmission(s) or channel(s). … In some examples, channel priority may be assigned based on physical channel type, and a shared channel (e.g., PUSCH) may have a higher priority than a control channel (e.g., PUCCH).).
Bhattad '811 and Hosseini are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor for handling transmissions in wireless communications that collide with one another.
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 Bhattad '811 with Hosseini to create a method of wireless communication performed by a base station, comprising: receiving the feedback message that is transmitted within the maximum deferral time and after a scheduled time for transmission, wherein a resource for the feedback message is selected based at least in part on a collision resolution procedure.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to adjust or update contention window size/value based on whether feedback for a transmission is received or could be scheduled during a channel occupancy time.
Regarding claim 22, Bhattad '811 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 ([0279] The method of any of examples 40 to 43, wherein the delay value comprises at least one of a preconfigured delay value, a configured delay value that is configured through radio resource control (RRC) downlink control information (DCI).).
Bhattad '811 fails to disclose the method, further comprising: receiving a next feedback message for a next PDSCH communication, wherein the next feedback message is transmitted within the updated maximum deferral time and after a scheduled time for transmission.
However, Hosseini discloses the method, further comprising: receiving a next feedback message for a next PDSCH communication, wherein the next feedback message is transmitted within the updated maximum deferral time and after a scheduled time for transmission ([0005] Generally, the described techniques allow a user equipment (UE) to prioritize transmissions in the event that uplink transmissions for different channels or different priorities have overlapping time or frequency resources based on a collision resolution configuration. The collision resolution configuration may be preconfigured at the UE or indicated to the UE from a network node (e.g., a base station). [0111] Some options for handling the collision between multiple overlapping channels (e.g., two or more channels of the same priority) may include resolving the collisions among the channels of the same priority first (e.g., feedback information transmissions first, and then control information), among the channels of the same service type first (e.g., eMBB channels first, and then eURLLC channel(s)), or across all of the channels of all priorities at once. ... In some examples, collisions may be resolved by dropping or rescheduling overlapping information from the lower priority transmission(s) or channel(s) in consideration of the higher priority transmission(s) or channel(s), or by multiplexing or piggybacking overlapping information from a first priority transmission(s) or channel(s) with a second priority transmission(s) or channel(s). … In some examples, channel priority may be assigned based on physical channel type, and a shared channel (e.g., PUSCH) may have a higher priority than a control channel (e.g., PUCCH).).
Bhattad '811 and Hosseini are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor for handling transmissions in wireless communications that collide with one another.
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 Bhattad '811 with Hosseini to create the method, further comprising: receiving a next feedback message for a next 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 adjust or update contention window size/value based on whether feedback for a transmission is received or could be scheduled during a channel occupancy time.
Regarding claim 23, Bhattad '811 discloses a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising:
one or more memories; and ([0203] The bus 2124 links together various circuits including one or more processors and/or hardware components, represented by the processor 2104, the components 2004, 2010, 2030, 2034, 2038, 2040, 2042, 2044 and the computer-readable medium/memory 2106.)
one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to ([0203] The bus 2124 links together various circuits including one or more processors and/or hardware components, represented by the processor 2104, the components 2004, 2010, 2030, 2034, 2038, 2040, 2042, 2044 and the computer-readable medium/memory 2106.):
receive an indication of a maximum deferral time for deferring transmission of a feedback message after receiving a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) communication, wherein the indication of the maximum deferral time is defined in slots or sub-slots ([0084] Call flow 400 also illustrates the base station 404 sending CW parameters or information to the UE 402 in 452. [0155] The aspects described in connection with FIGS. 4-12 that are described for a base station to make determinations about CWs may also be employed by a UE. Whereas a base station may know when the ACK/NACK feedback is expected in response to a downlink transmission, a UE may not be aware of when ACK/NACK feedback is expected from a base station in response to an uplink transmission. To address this, in one example, the UE may enhance the above-noted techniques by utilizing a maximum delay time to determine how long to wait for feedback. The network may configure a maximum delay for the UE to apply in making determinations about CW updates. The maximum delay value may be fixed or predetermined, or may be based on a predetermined information. [0147] Referring to FIG. 12, at 1202, the device transmits multiple data transmissions during at least one COT (e.g., PDSCH if the method is performed by a base station or PUSCH if the method is performed by a UE). [0145] When a plurality of ACK/NACK feedback is received for different COTs, the base station may process the plurality of feedback using a maximum delay time to determine which of the plurality feedback to consider. This maximum delay time can include a timeout after which arriving ACK/NACK may no longer be considered for CW update. … The maximum delay time may be in units of slots, units of COTs, units of time or other units.);
receive the PDSCH communication ([0083] The downlink transmissions may be, for example, PDCCH or PDSCH transmissions.).
Bhattad '811 fails to disclose a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: transmit the feedback message for the PDSCH communication within the maximum deferral time if the feedback message is deferred beyond a scheduled time for transmission, wherein a resource for the feedback message is selected based at least in part on a collision resolution procedure.
However, Hosseini discloses a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: transmit the feedback message for the PDSCH communication within the maximum deferral time if the feedback message is deferred beyond a scheduled time for transmission, wherein a resource for the feedback message is selected based at least in part on a collision resolution procedure ([0005] Generally, the described techniques allow a user equipment (UE) to prioritize transmissions in the event that uplink transmissions for different channels or different priorities have overlapping time or frequency resources based on a collision resolution configuration. The collision resolution configuration may be preconfigured at the UE or indicated to the UE from a network node (e.g., a base station). [0111] Some options for handling the collision between multiple overlapping channels (e.g., two or more channels of the same priority) may include resolving the collisions among the channels of the same priority first (e.g., feedback information transmissions first, and then control information), among the channels of the same service type first (e.g., eMBB channels first, and then eURLLC channel(s)), or across all of the channels of all priorities at once. ... In some examples, collisions may be resolved by dropping or rescheduling overlapping information from the lower priority transmission(s) or channel(s) in consideration of the higher priority transmission(s) or channel(s), or by multiplexing or piggybacking overlapping information from a first priority transmission(s) or channel(s) with a second priority transmission(s) or channel(s). … In some examples, channel priority may be assigned based on physical channel type, and a shared channel (e.g., PUSCH) may have a higher priority than a control channel (e.g., PUCCH).).
Bhattad '811 and Hosseini are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor for handling transmissions in wireless communications that collide with one another.
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 Bhattad '811 with Hosseini to create a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: transmit the feedback message for the PDSCH communication within the maximum deferral time if the feedback message is deferred beyond a scheduled time for transmission, wherein a resource for the feedback message is selected based at least in part on a collision resolution procedure.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to adjust or update contention window size/value based on whether feedback for a transmission is received or could be scheduled during a channel occupancy time.
Regarding claim 27, Bhattad '811 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 ([0279] The method of any of examples 40 to 43, wherein the delay value comprises at least one of a preconfigured delay value, a configured delay value that is configured through radio resource control (RRC) downlink control information (DCI).).
Bhattad '811 fails to disclose the UE, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: transmit a next feedback message for a next PDSCH communication within the updated maximum deferral time if the next feedback message is deferred beyond a scheduled time for transmission.
However, Hosseini discloses the UE, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: transmit a next feedback message for a next PDSCH communication within the updated maximum deferral time if the next feedback message is deferred beyond a scheduled time for transmission ([0005] Generally, the described techniques allow a user equipment (UE) to prioritize transmissions in the event that uplink transmissions for different channels or different priorities have overlapping time or frequency resources based on a collision resolution configuration. The collision resolution configuration may be preconfigured at the UE or indicated to the UE from a network node (e.g., a base station). [0111] Some options for handling the collision between multiple overlapping channels (e.g., two or more channels of the same priority) may include resolving the collisions among the channels of the same priority first (e.g., feedback information transmissions first, and then control information), among the channels of the same service type first (e.g., eMBB channels first, and then eURLLC channel(s)), or across all of the channels of all priorities at once. ... In some examples, collisions may be resolved by dropping or rescheduling overlapping information from the lower priority transmission(s) or channel(s) in consideration of the higher priority transmission(s) or channel(s), or by multiplexing or piggybacking overlapping information from a first priority transmission(s) or channel(s) with a second priority transmission(s) or channel(s). … In some examples, channel priority may be assigned based on physical channel type, and a shared channel (e.g., PUSCH) may have a higher priority than a control channel (e.g., PUCCH).).
Bhattad '811 and Hosseini are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor for handling transmissions in wireless communications that collide with one another.
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 Bhattad '811 with Hosseini to create the UE, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: transmit a next feedback message for a next 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 adjust or update contention window size/value based on whether feedback for a transmission is received or could be scheduled during a channel occupancy time.
Regarding claim 28, Bhattad '811 discloses a base station for wireless communication, comprising:
one or more memories; and ([0203] The bus 2124 links together various circuits including one or more processors and/or hardware components, represented by the processor 2104, the components 2004, 2010, 2030, 2034, 2038, 2040, 2042, 2044 and the computer-readable medium/memory 2106.)
one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to ([0203] The bus 2124 links together various circuits including one or more processors and/or hardware components, represented by the processor 2104, the components 2004, 2010, 2030, 2034, 2038, 2040, 2042, 2044 and the computer-readable medium/memory 2106.):
transmit, to a user equipment (UE), an indication of a maximum deferral time for deferring transmission of a feedback message after the UE receives physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) communication from the base station, wherein the indication of the maximum deferral time is defined in slots or sub-slots ([0084] Call flow 400 also illustrates the base station 404 sending CW parameters or information to the UE 402 in 452. [0155] The aspects described in connection with FIGS. 4-12 that are described for a base station to make determinations about CWs may also be employed by a UE. Whereas a base station may know when the ACK/NACK feedback is expected in response to a downlink transmission, a UE may not be aware of when ACK/NACK feedback is expected from a base station in response to an uplink transmission. To address this, in one example, the UE may enhance the above-noted techniques by utilizing a maximum delay time to determine how long to wait for feedback. The network may configure a maximum delay for the UE to apply in making determinations about CW updates. The maximum delay value may be fixed or predetermined, or may be based on a predetermined information. [0147] Referring to FIG. 12, at 1202, the device transmits multiple data transmissions during at least one COT (e.g., PDSCH if the method is performed by a base station or PUSCH if the method is performed by a UE). [0145] When a plurality of ACK/NACK feedback is received for different COTs, the base station may process the plurality of feedback using a maximum delay time to determine which of the plurality feedback to consider. This maximum delay time can include a timeout after which arriving ACK/NACK may no longer be considered for CW update. … The maximum delay time may be in units of slots, units of COTs, units of time or other units.);
transmit the PDSCH communication ([0083] The downlink transmissions may be, for example, PDCCH or PDSCH transmissions.).
Bhattad '811 fails to disclose a base station for wireless communication, comprising: receive the feedback message that is transmitted within the maximum deferral time and after a scheduled time for transmission, wherein a resource for the feedback message is selected based at least in part on a collision resolution procedure.
However, Hosseini discloses a base station for wireless communication, comprising: receive the feedback message that is transmitted within the maximum deferral time and after a scheduled time for transmission, wherein a resource for the feedback message is selected based at least in part on a collision resolution procedure ([0005] Generally, the described techniques allow a user equipment (UE) to prioritize transmissions in the event that uplink transmissions for different channels or different priorities have overlapping time or frequency resources based on a collision resolution configuration. The collision resolution configuration may be preconfigured at the UE or indicated to the UE from a network node (e.g., a base station). [0111] Some options for handling the collision between multiple overlapping channels (e.g., two or more channels of the same priority) may include resolving the collisions among the channels of the same priority first (e.g., feedback information transmissions first, and then control information), among the channels of the same service type first (e.g., eMBB channels first, and then eURLLC channel(s)), or across all of the channels of all priorities at once. ... In some examples, collisions may be resolved by dropping or rescheduling overlapping information from the lower priority transmission(s) or channel(s) in consideration of the higher priority transmission(s) or channel(s), or by multiplexing or piggybacking overlapping information from a first priority transmission(s) or channel(s) with a second priority transmission(s) or channel(s). … In some examples, channel priority may be assigned based on physical channel type, and a shared channel (e.g., PUSCH) may have a higher priority than a control channel (e.g., PUCCH).).
Bhattad '811 and Hosseini are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor for handling transmissions in wireless communications that collide with one another.
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 Bhattad '811 with Hosseini to create a base station for wireless communication, comprising: receive the feedback message that is transmitted within the maximum deferral time and after a scheduled time for transmission, wherein a resource for the feedback message is selected based at least in part on a collision resolution procedure.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to adjust or update contention window size/value based on whether feedback for a transmission is received or could be scheduled during a channel occupancy time.
Regarding claim 30, Bhattad '811 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 ([0279] The method of any of examples 40 to 43, wherein the delay value comprises at least one of a preconfigured delay value, a configured delay value that is configured through radio resource control (RRC) downlink control information (DCI).).
Bhattad '811 fails to disclose the base station, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive a next feedback message for a next PDSCH communication, wherein the next feedback message is transmitted within the updated maximum deferral time and after a scheduled time for transmission.
However, Hosseini discloses the base station, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive a next feedback message for a next PDSCH communication, wherein the next feedback message is transmitted within the updated maximum deferral time and after a scheduled time for transmission ([0005] Generally, the described techniques allow a user equipment (UE) to prioritize transmissions in the event that uplink transmissions for different channels or different priorities have overlapping time or frequency resources based on a collision resolution configuration. The collision resolution configuration may be preconfigured at the UE or indicated to the UE from a network node (e.g., a base station). [0111] Some options for handling the collision between multiple overlapping channels (e.g., two or more channels of the same priority) may include resolving the collisions among the channels of the same priority first (e.g., feedback information transmissions first, and then control information), among the channels of the same service type first (e.g., eMBB channels first, and then eURLLC channel(s)), or across all of the channels of all priorities at once. ... In some examples, collisions may be resolved by dropping or rescheduling overlapping information from the lower priority transmission(s) or channel(s) in consideration of the higher priority transmission(s) or channel(s), or by multiplexing or piggybacking overlapping information from a first priority transmission(s) or channel(s) with a second priority transmission(s) or channel(s). … In some examples, channel priority may be assigned based on physical channel type, and a shared channel (e.g., PUSCH) may have a higher priority than a control channel (e.g., PUCCH).).
Bhattad '811 and Hosseini are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor for handling transmissions in wireless communications that collide with one another.
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 Bhattad '811 with Hosseini to create the base station, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive a next feedback message for a next 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 adjust or update contention window size/value based on whether feedback for a transmission is received or could be scheduled during a channel occupancy time.
Claims 3, 4, 15, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhattad '811 in view of Hosseini, as applied to claims 1, 13, 23, or 28 above, and further in view of Carlson et al (US20020159396A1) (hereinafter "Carlson").
Regarding claim 3, Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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.).
Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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 Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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, Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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.).
Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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 Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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, Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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.).
Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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 Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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, Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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.).
Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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 Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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, Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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.).
Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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 Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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 Bhattad '811 in view of Hosseini, 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, Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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.).
Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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 Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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, Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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.).
Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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 Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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 6, 10, 17, 21, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhattad '811 in view of Hosseini, as applied to claims 1, 13, 23, or 28 above, and further in view of Liu et al (US10931412B2) (hereinafter "Liu").
Regarding claim 6, Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, fails to disclose the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is configured per semi-persistent scheduling configuration.
However, 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.).
Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, and Liu 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 Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, and Liu to create the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is configured per semi-persistent scheduling configuration.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to allow for precise, low-latency control of feedback information.
Regarding claim 10, Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, fails to disclose the method, wherein the indication is received in a radio resource control message.
However, 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.).
Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, and Liu 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 Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, and Liu to create the method, wherein the indication is received in a radio resource control message.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to allow for precise, low-latency control of feedback information.
Regarding claim 17, Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, fails to disclose the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is configured per semi-persistent scheduling configuration.
However, 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.).
Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, and Liu 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 Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, and Liu to create the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is configured per semi-persistent scheduling configuration.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to allow for precise, low-latency control of feedback information.
Regarding claim 21, Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, fails to disclose the method, wherein the indication is transmitted in a radio resource control message.
However, 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.).
Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, and Liu 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 Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, and Liu to create the method, wherein the indication is transmitted in a radio resource control message.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to allow for precise, low-latency control of feedback information.
Regarding claim 31, Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, fails to disclose the UE, wherein the maximum deferral time is configured per semi-persistent scheduling configuration.
However, Liu discloses the UE, wherein the maximum deferral time is configured per semi-persistent scheduling configuration.
Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, and Liu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of techniques for maximum delayed HARQ-ACK transmission (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.).
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 Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, and Liu to create the UE, wherein the maximum deferral time is configured per semi-persistent scheduling configuration.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to allow for precise, low-latency control of feedback information.
Regarding claim 32, Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, fails to disclose the UE, wherein the indication is received in a radio resource control message.
However, Liu discloses the UE, 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.).
Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, and Liu 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 Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, and Liu to create the UE, wherein the indication is received in a radio resource control message.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to allow for precise, low-latency control of feedback information.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhattad '811 in view of Hosseini, as applied to claims 1, 13, 23, or 28 above, and further in view of Ying et al (US20240187141A1) (hereinafter "Ying").
Regarding claim 7, Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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).).
Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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 Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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, Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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).).
Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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 Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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 Bhattad '811 in view of Hosseini, as applied to claims 1, 13, 23, or 28 above, and further in view of Mukherjee et al (US20240187141A1) (hereinafter "Mukherjee").
Regarding claim 8, Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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).
Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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 Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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, Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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).
Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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 Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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 Bhattad '811 in view of Hosseini, as applied to claims 1, 13, 23, or 28 above, and further in view of Bhattad et al (US20180376498A1) (hereinafter "Bhattad '498").
Regarding claim 9, Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, fails to disclose the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is configured per transport block.
However, Bhattad '498 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.).
Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, and Bhattad '498 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 Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, and Bhattad '498 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, Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, fails to disclose the method, wherein the maximum deferral time is configured per transport block.
However, Bhattad '498 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.).
Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, and Bhattad '498 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 Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, and Bhattad '498 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 Bhattad '811 in view of Hosseini, as applied to claims 1, 13, 23, or 28 above, and further in view of Bhattad et al (US20230112147A1) (hereinafter "Chien").
Regarding claim 12, Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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.).
Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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 Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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, Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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.).
Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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 Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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, Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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.).
Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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 Bhattad '811, as modified by Hosseini, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 13, 23, and 28, and associated dependent claims 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Babaei et al (US20230261799A1) discloses enhancements for hybrid automatic repeat request feedback codebook including deferred HARQ feedback.
Sun et al (WO2022080775A1) discloses a method for indicating number of slots for scheduled PDSCH or PUSCH slot aggregation transmission, involving receiving indication information indicating whether interval between slot or between each slot bundle among multiple slots.
Karaki et al (US20230269034A1) discloses methods for conditional feedback for HARQ operation with enabling/disabling per HARQ process.
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 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nishant Divecha can be reached on 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
Prosecution Insights