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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 10/27/25 is acknowledged.
The requirement is still deemed proper (as further described in the previous Office Action) and is therefore made FINAL.
Accordingly, Group II claims 15-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. Applicant is requested to cancel the non-elected claims in response to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Current amendments made by Applicant to claims 1-14 to obviate the claim objections presented in the previous Office Action are proper and have been entered. These objections have accordingly been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (U.S. 2020/0313732) (hereinafter “Yang”). Yang teaches all of the limitations of the specified claims with the reasoning that follows.
Regarding claim 1, “a method for determining a downlink assignment index (DAI) for a low-priority HARQ-ACK codebook based on a field received in a downlink control information (DCI) indicating a high-priority physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) transmission or physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission, the method comprising: determining a first DAI value for low-priority HARQ-ACK codebook in a first DCI indicating a high-priority PUCCH transmission or PUSCH transmission” is anticipated by the UE 115b of Figure 8 that receives one or more downlink grants (DCI) for transmitting on one or more uplink channels (PUCCH, PUSCH) from a base station 105b as shown in step 805 of Figure 8; where the one or more uplink grants may schedule a first resource for transmission of a first feedback codebook (HARQ-ACK codebook) for a URLLC service type (high-priority transmission) and a second resource for a transmission of a second feedback codebook (HARQ-ACK codebook) for an eMBB service type (low-priority transmission) as spoken of on page 20, paragraph [0220]; and where the UL grant(s) transmitted by the base station 105b may contain one or more downlink assignment indication (first DAI value) fields to indicate expected codebook sizes as spoken of on page 20, paragraph [0213].
“Determining a low-priority HARQ-ACK codebook to multiplex with high-priority HARQ-ACK codebook or PUSCH transmission corresponding to the first DCI” is anticipated by the UE 115b that determines a first resource amount to be utilized for transmission of the first feedback codebook (high-priority HARQ-ACK codebook) for the URLLC service type and the second resource amount to be utilized for transmission of the second feedback codebook (low-priority HARQ-ACK codebook) for the eMBB service type based at least in part on a multiplexing condition being satisfied as shown in step 810 of Figure 8 and spoken of on page 20, paragraph [0221]; where the UE 115b used the DAI fields (corresponding to first DCI) to determine the feedback codebook sizes as spoken of on page 20, paragraph [0213].
“Adjusting a size of the low-priority HARQ-ACK codebook to be consistent with the first DAI value” is anticipated by the adjustment of the size of a payload for the eMBB service type codebook in relation to an available amount of resources for the transmission resource (consistent with first DAI value) as spoken of on page 23, paragraph [0251].
Lastly, “multiplexing the low-priority HARQ-ACK codebook with the high-priority HARQ-ACK codebook or PUSCH transmission” is anticipated by the UE 115b that maps (multiplexes) the first encoded feedback codebook and the second encoded feedback codebook to a transmission resource based on the first resource amount and the second resource amount using a mapping scheme as shown in step 815 of Figure 8 and spoken of on page 21, paragraphs [0222] and [0226].
Regarding claim 8, “a wireless transmit receive unit (WTRU) for determining a downlink assignment index (DAI) for a low-priority HARQ-ACK codebook based on a field received in a downlink control information (DCI) indicating a high-priority physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) transmission or physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission, the WTRU comprising: a processor; and a transceiver operatively coupled to the processor, the processor configured to determine a first DAI value for low-priority HARQ- ACK codebook in a first DCI indicating a high-priority PUCCH transmission or PUSCH transmission” is anticipated by the UE 115b (WTRU) of Figure 8 that receives one or more downlink grants (DCI) for transmitting on one or more uplink channels (PUCCH, PUSCH) from a base station 105b as shown in step 805 of Figure 8; where the one or more uplink grants may schedule a first resource for transmission of a first feedback codebook (HARQ-ACK codebook) for a URLLC service type (high-priority transmission) and a second resource for a transmission of a second feedback codebook (HARQ-ACK codebook) for an eMBB service type (low-priority transmission) as spoken of on page 20, paragraph [0220]; where the UL grant(s) transmitted by the base station 105b may contain one or more downlink assignment indication (first DAI value) fields to indicate expected codebook sizes as spoken of on page 20, paragraph [0213]; and where the UE 1205 of Figure 12 includes a processor 1240 coupled to a transceiver 1220.
“The processor configured to determine a low-priority HARQ-ACK codebook to multiplex with high-priority HARQ-ACK codebook or PUSCH transmission corresponding to the first DCI” is anticipated by the UE 115b that determines a first resource amount to be utilized for transmission of the first feedback codebook (high-priority HARQ-ACK codebook) for the URLLC service type and the second resource amount to be utilized for transmission of the second feedback codebook (low-priority HARQ-ACK codebook) for the eMBB service type based at least in part on a multiplexing condition being satisfied as shown in step 810 of Figure 8 and spoken of on page 20, paragraph [0221]; where the UE 115b used the DAI fields (corresponding to first DCI) to determine the feedback codebook sizes as spoken of on page 20, paragraph [0213].
“The processor configured to adjust the size of the low-priority HARQ-ACK codebook to be consistent with the first DAI value” is anticipated by the adjustment of the size of a payload for the eMBB service type codebook in relation to an available amount of resources for the transmission resource (consistent with first DAI value) as spoken of on page 23, paragraph [0251].
Lastly, “the processor configured to multiplex the low-priority HARQ-ACK codebook with the high-priority HARQ-ACK codebook or PUSCH transmission” is anticipated by the UE 115b that maps (multiplexes) the first encoded feedback codebook and the second encoded feedback codebook to a transmission resource based on the first resource amount and the second resource amount using a mapping scheme as shown in step 815 of Figure 8 and spoken of on page 21, paragraphs [0222] and [0226].
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-7 and 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Wang et al. (U.S. 2022/0132537) (hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Yang teaches claims 1 and 8 as described above. Yang does not explicitly teach “wherein the adjusting the size of the low-priority HARQ-ACK codebook to be consistent with the first DAI value includes appending zeros”.
However, Wang teaches a method of PUCCH transmission utilizing HARQ-ACK codebooks where in the event that the size of a low priority HARQ-ACK codebook is smaller than a preconfigured or predefined HARQ-ACK codebook size, a number of zero bits are padded (appending zeros) to the low priority HARQ-ACK codebook until the size is equal to the preconfigured or predefined HARQ-ACK codebook size as spoken of on page 9, paragraph [0135].
Given the above references, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to apply the zero padding taught in Wang to the HARQ-ACK codebook generation of Yang in order to improve the reliability of the uplink communication by ensuring that HARQ-ACK codebooks of a specific configured size are transmitted as spoken of on page 9, paragraph [0135] of Wang.
Regarding claims 3-7 and 10-14, Yang teaches claims 1 and 8 as described above. Yang does not explicitly teach “wherein the first DAI value indicates the low-priority HARQ-ACK codebook is priority 0” or “wherein the first DAI value indicates that the low-priority HARQ-ACK codebook is priority 1” or “wherein the first DAI value indicates a configuration to disable multiplexing with a HARQ-ACK codebook of priority index 0” or “wherein the first DAI value indicates disabling multiplexing into a PUSCH transmission” or “wherein the first DAI indicates enabling multiplexing into a PUSCH transmission”.
However, Wang teaches a method of PUCCH transmission utilizing HARQ-ACK codebooks where in the event that a DAI value (indicating configuration) of a received UL grant has a value of 1 (priority 1), the UE is instructed to multiplex (enable multiplexing) a low priority HARQ-ACK codebook in the high priority PUSCH, and in the event that the DAI value of the received UL grant has a value of 0 (priority 0, priority index 0), the UE is instructed to not multiplex (disable multiplexing) the low priority HARQ-ACK codebook in the high priority PUSCH as spoken of on page 9, paragraph [0132].
Given the above references, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to apply the selective multiplexing in relation to DAI value as taught in Wang to the HARQ-ACK codebook generation of Yang in order to improve the reliability of the uplink communication by providing an explicit indication to multiplex HARQ-ACK codebook information in the event that low-priority HARQ-ACK codebook information overlaps the high-priority PUSCH in the time domain as spoken of on page 9, paragraphs [0131]-[0132] of Wang.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Yang fails to teach determining a low-priority DAI based on a DCI field that indicates a high-priority PUCCH or PUSCH transmission as recited in claim 1. However, claim 1 recites “determining a first DAI value for a low-priority HARQ-ACK codebook in a first DCI indicating a high-priority PUCCH transmission or PUSCH transmission”, which appears somewhat different in scope from determining a low-priority DAI based on a DCI field as asserted by Applicant.
As provided in the previous Office Action and reiterated above, Yang teaches the UE 115b of Figure 8 that receives one or more downlink grants (DCI) for transmitting on one or more uplink channels (PUCCH, PUSCH) from a base station 105b as shown in step 805 of Figure 8; where the one or more uplink grants may schedule a first resource for transmission of a first feedback codebook (HARQ-ACK codebook) for a URLLC service type (high-priority transmission) and a second resource for a transmission of a second feedback codebook (HARQ-ACK codebook) for an eMBB service type (low-priority transmission) as spoken of on page 20, paragraph [0220]; and where the UL grant(s) transmitted by the base station 105b may contain one or more downlink assignment indication (first DAI value) fields to indicate expected codebook sizes as spoken of on page 20, paragraph [0213].
In other words, the received grants (DCI) for scheduling resources for feedback codebook transmission on one or more PUCCH or PUSCH channel(s) contain one or more downlink assignment indication fields (first DAI value), and where the feedback codebook (HARQ-ACK) transmission pertains to both a URLLC service type (high-priority) and an eMBB service type (low-priority).
Yang further describes in paragraph [0213] that to determine the HARQ-ACK codebook size … the UL grant transmitted … may contain one or more downlink assignment indication (DAI) fields to indicate expected codebook sizes. The UE 115 may use the DAI fields to determine the feedback codebook sizes … the UL grant includes two DAI fields, where one DAI field indicates the eMBB codebook size (first DAI value), and the other field indicates the URLLC codebook size.
It is maintained that the above teachings of Yang describe a determining of a first DAI value for a low-priority HARQ-ACK codebook in a first DCI indicating a high-priority PUCCH transmission or PUSCH transmission.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant also argues that Yang fails to teach “adjusting a size of the low-priority HARQ-ACK codebook to be consistent with the first DAI value”.
However, as provided in the previous Office Action and reiterated above, Yang teaches the adjustment of the size of a payload for the eMBB service type codebook in relation to an available amount of resources for the transmission resource (consistent with first DAI value) as spoken of on page 23, paragraph [0251].
In other words, the payload size adjustment for the eMBB service type (low-priority) codebook is performed based on an available amount of resources, where the available amount of resources are consistent with the expected codebook sizes indicated by the DAI fields in the received UL grant communication. If the sum of resource amounts for the URLLC and eMBB service types exceeds the total available amount of resources, the size of a payload for the eMBB service type is adjusted consistent with the expected codebook sizes as spoken of on page 23, paragraph [0251].
It is maintained that the above teachings of Yang describe an adjusting of a size of the low-priority HARQ-ACK codebook to be consistent with the first DAI value.
Similar reasoning applies to corresponding WTRU (apparatus) claim 8.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL J. MOORE, JR., whose telephone number is (571)272-3168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9am-4pm).
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, Hassan A. Phillips can be reached at (571)272-3940. 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.
/MICHAEL J MOORE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights