Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 14-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenova et al. (“Details of Selective Duplication Procedure”, R2-1910104, 8/2019) (“Lenova”) in view of Lin et al. (US 2022/0045803) (“Lin”) in view of Wu et al. (US 2023/0379097) (“Wu”).
For claims 1, 9, 15, and 16; Lenova discloses: transmit a transport block ("TB"); receive, in response to the TB, downlink control information ("DCI"), the DCI comprising a new data indicator ("NDI") field (page 2-3: UE implicitly activates duplication upon receiving a non-toggled NDI for an UL HARQ process carrying a DRB requiring the support of a survival time… Upon reception of a retransmission DCI for a MAC PDU, UE enables duplicate transmissions for the PDCP PDU for which a HARQ retransmission is requested and for further subsequent PDCP PDUs), wherein the NDI field comprises a value that indicates that transmission of the TB was not successfully received (page 2-3: a non-toggled NDI for an UL HARQ process carrying a DRB requiring the support of a survival time); and trigger, based at least in part on the value of the NDI field at least one autonomous transmission-reliability action that is different from HARQ retransmission to increase a transmission reliability for a subsequent TB (page 2-3: Upon reception of a retransmission DCI for a MAC PDU, UE enables duplicate transmissions for the PDCP PDU for which a HARQ retransmission is requested and for further subsequent PDCP PDUs).
Lenova does not expressly disclose, but Lin from similar fields of endeavor teaches: a control field that is separate from the NDI field and the control field comprises a value that indicates to suppress hybrid automatic repeat request ("HARQ") retransmission of the TB (paragraph 138, 141: a new DCI field or an existing DCI field is repurposed for signaling an indication (e.g., 1-bit information or 1 code-point in DCI encoding) to the receiver that indicates whether the HARQ mechanism is deactivated, e.g., for an associated transmission… DCI fields to schedule a PDSCH/PUSCH transmission with HARQ disabled). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the signaling as described by Lin in the transmission scheme as described by Lenova. The motivation is to improve latency where packet drops are acceptable.
Lenova does not expressly disclose, but Wu from similar fields of endeavor teaches: trigger, based at least in part on disabled HARQ, at least one autonomous transmission-reliability action that is different from HARQ retransmission to increase a transmission reliability for a subsequent TB (paragraph 103: By configuring the HARQ processes with HARQ feedback function disabled to be able to perform blind retransmission, the problem that the disabling the HARQ feedback function affects the reliability of data transmission is improved, and the blind retransmission is configured only for the HARQ processes with HARQ feedback function disabled, so that the data transmission amount of other HARQ processes without HARQ feedback function disabled will not be affected). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the automomous reliability as described by Wu in the transmission scheme as described by Lenova. The motivation is to improve latency where packet drops are acceptable.
For claims 2, 10, and 17; Lenova discloses: wherein the at least one action comprises performing packet data convergence protocol (“PDCP”) duplication (page 2-3: Upon reception of a retransmission DCI for a MAC PDU, UE enables duplicate transmissions for the PDCP PDU for which a HARQ retransmission is requested and for further subsequent PDCP PDUs).
For claims 5, 14, and 20; Lenova discloses the subject matter in claim 1 as described above in the office action.
Lenova does not expressly disclose, but Lin from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein hybrid automatic repeat request (“HARQ”) retransmission of the TB is not initiated in response to a reserved codepoint in the DCI indicating that the retransmission of the TB is not to be performed (paragraph 138, 141: a new DCI field or an existing DCI field is repurposed for signaling an indication (e.g., 1-bit information or 1 code-point in DCI encoding) to the receiver that indicates whether the HARQ mechanism is deactivated, e.g., for an associated transmission… DCI fields to schedule a PDSCH/PUSCH transmission with HARQ disabled). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the signaling as described by Lin in the transmission scheme as described by Lenova. The motivation is to improve latency where packet drops are acceptable.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 11, 12, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenova in view of Lin in view of Wu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2019/0261234) (“Park”).
For claim 3, 11, and 18; Lenova discloses the subject matter in claim 1 as described above in the office action.
Lenova does not expressly disclose, but Park from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the at least one action comprises increasing a transmission power level (paragraph 335: A first base station may increase an uplink/downlink power level (e.g., 0.1 dB increase) for one or more wireless devices (e.g., wireless devices served in the first cell, such as the Cell1), for example, if the one or more wireless devices experience a failure during a time in which a first beam is used). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the power control as described by Park in the transmission scheme as described by Lenova. The motivation is to improve connection reliability.
For claim 4, 12, and 19; Lenova discloses the subject matter in claim 1 as described above in the office action.
Lenova does not expressly disclose, but Park from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the DCI comprises a cyclic redundancy check (“CRC”) scrambled by a cell radio network temporary identifier (“C-RNTI”) or a configured scheduling RNTI (“CS-RNTI”) (paragraph 244-245: a DCI via a PDCCH addressed to a Configured Scheduling-RNTI (CS-RNTI) activating the CS resources… The base station may dynamically allocate resources to the wireless device via a C-RNTI on one or more PDCCHs). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the signaling as described by Park in the transmission scheme as described by Lenova. The motivation is to implement standard DCI signaling techniques.
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenova in view of Lin in view of Wu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2013/0343243) (“Yang”) in view of Tan et al. (US 2022/0330049) (“Tan”).
For claim 6 and 13; Lenova discloses the subject matter in claim 1 as described above in the office action.
Lenova does not expressly disclose, but Yang from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to initiate hybrid automatic repeat request (“HARQ”) retransmission of the TB in response to setting the NDI field to the value that indicates that the transmission of the TB was unsuccessful and the control field to the value that indicates retransmission of the TB (paragraph 139: the NDI in the PDCCH is not toggled compared to the previous NDI, the UE recognizes that previous PUSCH transmission fails and existing data needs to be retransmitted. Therefore, according to Option 4 of the present invention, if a UL grant demanding retransmission, i.e. a grant having an NDI not toggled, is not received, the UE does not perform retransmission of the previously transmitted PUSCH. In other words, the UE may perform retransmission for the previously transmitted PUSCH according to content included in the UL grant only when a UL grant demanding retransmission (UL grant including an NDI not toggled) is received). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the signaling as described by Yang in the transmission scheme as described by Lenova. The motivation is to improve signaling speed.
Lenova does not expressly disclose, but Tan from similar fields of endeavor teaches: without enabling the at least one action (paragraph 78: additional thresholds can be configured to enable the UE and/or the gNB to trigger measurement reports or perform subsequent actions such as RRC reconfiguration or PDCP duplication activation/deactivation. The gNB can send the threshold information to the UE via RRC, MAC, or DCI signaling messages. In some embodiments, the threshold information can enable the UE to initiate a cell resection procedure or a PDCD duplication process by itself). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the UE enablement as described by Tan in the transmission scheme as described by Lenova. The motivation is to improve messaging efficiency.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenova in view of Lin in view of Wu in view of Yang in view of Tan as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2023/0180013) (“Wang”).
For claim 7; Lenova discloses the subject matter in claim 6 as described above in the office action.
Lenova does not expressly disclose, but Wang from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the HARQ retransmission of the TB is not initiated in response to the HARQ retransmission of the TB taking place occurring after the maximum allowed transmission time associated with the TB (paragraph 65: If the URLLC user has be postponed to later time, potentially, retransmission may not be possible with the given packet delay budget requirement). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the signaling as described by Wang in the transmission scheme as described by Lenova. The motivation is to improve service level agreements.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenova in view of Lin in view of Wu in view of Tan as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Bae et al. (US 2022/0287058) (“Bae”).
For claim 8; Lenova discloses the subject matter in claim 6 as described above in the office action.
Lenova does not expressly disclose, but Bae from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the HARQ retransmission is initiated according to one or more other fields within the DCI, the one or more other fields comprising at least one selected from the group of: a time domain resource assignment, a redundancy version, and a frequency domain resource assignment (paragraph 282: The UE may transmit the PUSCH on a UL resource determined based on the RRC configurations or UL grant DCI. For example, as described in one or more of Methods 1 to 6, the UE may perform the PUSCH transmission or retransmission based on the resource allocation information and/or NDI included in the DCI). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the signaling as described by Bae in the transmission scheme as described by Lenova. The motivation is to improve messaging efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wei (US 2019/0394796). Wei discloses supporting diverse use cases such as enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB), Ultra-reliable and Low Latency Communications (URLLC) and massive Machine Type Communication (mMTC), the radio frame structure and most of the medium access control (MAC) layer procedures in NR are designed to have high flexibility. In addition, NR also introduces a new type of radio resource which has a more robust characteristic (e.g., low block error rate (BLER)). The new type of radio resource aims to achieve a target BLER.
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 JOHN D BLANTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3933. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-6pm EST, Mon-Thu.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN D BLANTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466