DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Based on the current set of claims (Claims, 07 December 2025), Claims 23-40 are pending.
Based on the current set of claims (Claims, 07 December 2025), Claims 23, 31, and 40 are amended and said amendments are not supported by the Specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the objection of Claim 6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of Claim 6 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of Claims 23-30 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claims 23-30 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of Claims 23, 24, 26-34, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Matsumura does not disclose, teach, or suggest that “the count sequence number indicates an accumulated quantity of pieces of uplink control information” (Remarks, 07 December 2025, Pg. 1, ¶4).
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Matsumura clearly states that “in the case where the UE performs feedback of HARQ-ACK using Type-2 HARQ-ACK codebook, the UE controls generation of the codebook . . . based on the DAI (e.g., counter DAI)” (Matsumura, ¶41). Here, the HARQ-ACK codebook is a form of uplink control information (UCI) (Matsumura, ¶98) and the UCI is transmitted over a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) (Matsumura, ¶98).
Applicant further argues that Applicant’s newly amended features, namely that the “uplink control information to be separately transmitted” (Claims, 07 December 2025, Claim 1), is not disclosed or taught by Matsumura.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Matsumura clearly states that the Type-2 HARQ-ACK codebook includes a “number of bits” (Matsumura, ¶26 & ¶41) and further states that the UCI is transmitted over a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) (Matsumura, ¶98), thus the claim can be broadly interpreted to mean that each bit is transmitted separately over the PUCCH.
Examiner will maintain the current ground of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 23, 31, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In Applicant’s specification, the term, “separately”, is typically found in sentences dealing with downlink data packets (Specification, 26 July 2023, 14:3-8 & 19:27-31 & 23:20-21). The term, “separate”, is cited in connection with uplink control information (UCI) (Specification, 26 July 2023, 26:1-2); however, there is no indication of the act of transmission with the term, “separate”, thus the specification does not support the uplink control information being “transmitted separately”. The remaining recitations of the term, “separate”, discuss embodiments (Specification, 26 July 2023, ¶206).
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 23-24, 26, 28-30, 31, 32-33, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamss et al. (US 20210184801 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Hamss”) in view of Matsumura et al. (US 20230164794 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Matsumura”) in further view of Liu et al. (US 20220294591 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Liu”).
Regarding Claim 23, Claim 23 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 40.
Regarding Claim 24, Hamss in view of Matsumura in further view of Liu discloses the method according to claim 23.
Hamss further discloses the method further comprises:
in response to the detecting the feedback information, determining, based on the feedback information, that the at least one piece of DCI corresponding to the uplink control information is not detected (¶89-90, Hamss discloses that the base station may determine, based upon a value of a bit in the feedback, that the DCI was missed, or not detected, by the UE).
Regarding Claim 26, Hamss in view of Matsumura in further view of Liu discloses the method according to claim 23.
Hamss further discloses the DCI miss-detection information comprises an accumulated quantity of pieces of uplink control information corresponding to DCI that is not detected (¶41, Matsumura discloses that the counter DAI indicates the number of bits of the HARQ-ACK codebook).
Regarding Claim 28, Hamss in view of Matsumura in further view of Liu discloses the method according to claim 23.
Hamss further discloses the feedback information further comprises a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) response message (¶89-90, Hamss discloses that the feedback is HARQ feedback).
Regarding Claim 29, Hamss in view of Matsumura in further view of Liu discloses the method according to claim 23.
Hamss further discloses the count sequence number is an independent field or a HARQ process number field (¶89 & Fig. 7 (710 & 720), Hamss discloses that the first DCI carriers a counter downlink assignment index (c-DAI)).
Regarding Claim 30, Hamss in view of Matsumura in further view of Liu discloses the method according to claim 23.
Hamss further discloses a quantity of bits occupied by the count sequence number is at least one bit and at most six bits (¶289, Hamss discloses that the counter downlink assignment index (c-DAI) has a length of 6 bits).
Regarding Claim 31, Hamss discloses a control information receiving method, comprising:
receiving from a base station at least one piece of downlink control information (DCI) and a downlink physical shared channel corresponding to the at least one piece of DCI (¶89 & Fig. 7 (710 & 720), Hamss discloses sending, to a user equipment (UE), a first downlink control information (DCI) and a downlink transmission corresponding to the first DCI), wherein the at least one piece of DCI carries a count sequence number (¶89 & Fig. 7 (710 & 720), Hamss discloses that the first DCI carriers a counter downlink assignment index (c-DAI));
generating corresponding feedback information based on the count sequence number (¶89 & Fig. 7 (730), Hamss discloses generating, by the UE, feedback based on the c-DAI), wherein the feedback information comprises DCI miss-detection information (¶89, Hamss discloses the feedback comprises a codebook having a size m where m is assumed to be equal to m scheduling events); and
sending the feedback information to the base station (¶89 & Fig. 7 (730), Hamss discloses transmitting, by the UE, feedback based on the c-DAI), and
the uplink control information is used to transmit the feedback information (¶90, Hamss discloses that the counter DAI is used to determine a sequence, or order, of bits in the feedback transmitted from the UE).
However, Hamss does not disclose wherein the count sequence number indicates an accumulated quantity of pieces of uplink control information to be separately transmitted.
Matsumura, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the count sequence number indicates an accumulated quantity of pieces of uplink control information (¶41, Matsumura discloses that the counter DAI indicates the number of bits of the HARQ-ACK codebook) to be separately transmitted (¶26 & ¶41 & ¶98, Matsumura clearly discloses that the Type-2 HARQ-ACK codebook includes a “number of bits” that the bits of the UCI are transmitted over a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hamss by requiring that the count sequence number indicates an accumulated quantity of pieces of uplink control information to be separately transmitted as taught by Matsumura because HARQ feedback is improved by suitably performing HARQ-ACK feedback in the case of using multi-panel/TRP (Matsumura, ¶8-9).
However, Hamss in view of Matsumura does not disclose one piece of the uplink control information corresponds to a downlink physical shared channel scheduled by using the at least one piece of DCI.
Liu, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches one piece of the uplink control information corresponds to a downlink physical shared channel scheduled by using the at least one piece of DCI (¶87, Liu discloses that each bit of the HARQ feedback corresponds to each Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hamss in view of Matsumura by requiring that one piece of the uplink control information corresponds to a downlink physical shared channel scheduled by using the at least one piece of DCI as taught by Liu because HARQ feedback is improved when CORESETs are configured with two values or only a single value (Liu, Abstract & ¶73).
Regarding Claim 32, Claim 32 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 29.
Regarding Claim 33, Claim 33 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 26.
Regarding Claim 40, Hamss discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a memory, configured to store a computer program (¶32-41 & Fig. 1B & ¶105, Hamss discloses a user equipment (UE) comprising a non-removable memory where the memory stores a computer program); and
a processor, configured to execute the computer program stored in the memory (¶32-41 & Fig. 1B, Hamss discloses the UE comprising a processor where the processor is configured to execute the computer program on the memory), wherein when the computer program is executed, the processor is configured to perform the method (¶32-41 & Fig. 1B, Hamss discloses the computer program, when executed by the processor, causes the UE to perform a method) according to the following steps:
sending at least one piece of downlink control information (DCI) and a downlink physical shared channel corresponding to the at least one piece of DCI (¶89 & Fig. 7 (710 & 720), Hamss discloses sending, to a user equipment (UE), a first downlink control information (DCI) and a downlink transmission corresponding to the first DCI), wherein the at least one piece of DCI carries a count sequence number (¶89 & Fig. 7 (710 & 720), Hamss discloses that the first DCI carriers a counter downlink assignment index (c-DAI)); and
detecting feedback information from at least one user equipment (¶89 & Fig. 7 (730), Hamss discloses detecting feedback from the UE), wherein the feedback information comprises DCI miss-detection information (¶89 & Fig. 7 (730), Hamss discloses the feedback comprises a codebook having a size m where m is assumed to be equal to m scheduling events), and
the uplink control information is used for transmitting the feedback information (¶90, Hamss discloses that the counter DAI is used to determine a sequence, or order, of bits in the feedback transmitted from the UE).
However, Hamss does not disclose wherein the count sequence number indicates an accumulated quantity of pieces of uplink control information to be separately transmitted.
Matsumura, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the count sequence number indicates an accumulated quantity of pieces of uplink control information (¶41, Matsumura discloses that the counter DAI indicates the number of bits of the HARQ-ACK codebook) to be separately transmitted (¶26 & ¶41 & ¶98, Matsumura clearly discloses that the Type-2 HARQ-ACK codebook includes a “number of bits” that the bits of the UCI are transmitted over a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hamss by requiring that the count sequence number indicates an accumulated quantity of pieces of uplink control information to be separately transmitted as taught by Matsumura because HARQ feedback is improved by suitably performing HARQ-ACK feedback in the case of using multi-panel/TRP (Matsumura, ¶8-9).
However, Hamss in view of Matsumura does not disclose one piece of the uplink control information corresponds to a downlink physical shared channel scheduled by using the at least one piece of DCI.
Liu, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches one piece of the uplink control information corresponds to a downlink physical shared channel scheduled by using the at least one piece of DCI (¶87, Liu discloses that each bit of the HARQ feedback corresponds to each Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hamss in view of Matsumura by requiring that one piece of the uplink control information corresponds to a downlink physical shared channel scheduled by using the at least one piece of DCI as taught by Liu because HARQ feedback is improved when CORESETs are configured with two values or only a single value (Liu, Abstract & ¶73).
Claim 27 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamss in view of Matsumura in view of Liu in further view of Yi et al. (US 20200396760 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Yi”).
Regarding Claim 27, Hamss in view of Matsumura in further view of Liu discloses the method according to claim 23.
However, Hamss in view of Matsumura in further view of Liu does not disclose the at least one piece of DCI further carries an indication for temporarily disabling NACK only, to control the user equipment to temporarily disable a NACK-only feedback mechanism.
Yi, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the at least one piece of DCI further carries an indication (¶468, Yi discloses that the DCI comprises a Negative Acknowledgment (NACK) indicator field) for temporarily disabling NACK only, to control the user equipment to temporarily disable a NACK-only feedback mechanism (¶468, Yi discloses that the Negative Acknowledgment (NACK) indicator field indicates whether to transmit NACK-only, ACK-NACK, or ACK-only).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hamss in view of Matsumura in further view of Liu by requiring that the at least one piece of DCI further carries an indication for temporarily disabling NACK only, to control the user equipment to temporarily disable a NACK-only feedback mechanism as taught by Yi because control information is more efficient, reliability of wireless communications is increased, and transmission latencies are reduced by enabling the wireless device to receive a first portion of control information and not necessarily receive a second portion of the control information (Yi, ¶4).
Regarding Claim 34, Claim 34 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 27.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25 and 35-39 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
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 ERIC NOWLIN whose telephone number is (313)446-6544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00PM-10:00PM.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/ERIC NOWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2474