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 Amendment and Argument
1. This communication is in response to applicant's 01/16/2026 communications in the application of Wong for the "METHODS, COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES, AND INFRASTRUCTURE EQUIPMENT" filed 09/22/2023. This application is a National Stage entry of PCT/EP2022/057141, International Filing Date: 03/18/2022, and claims foreign priority to 21165723.4, filed 03/29/2021 in EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE (EPO). The amendment and response have been entered and made of record. Claims 30-32 have been added. Claims 1-16, 28, 30-32 are pending in the present application.
2. Applicant’s remarks and argument to the rejected claims are insufficient to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited prior arts or overcome the rejection of said claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed below. Applicant’s argument with respect to the pending claims have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
3. In response to Applicant’s argument that the reference does not teach or reasonably suggest the functionality upon which the Examiner relies for the rejection. The Examiner first emphasizes for the record that the claims employ a broader in scope than the Applicant’s disclosure in all aspects. In addition, the Applicant has not argued any narrower interpretation of the claim limitations, nor amended the claims significantly enough to construe a narrower meaning to the limitations. Since the claims breadth allows multiple interpretations and meanings, which are broader than Applicant’s disclosure, the Examiner is required to interpret the claim limitations in terms of their broadest reasonable interpretations while determining patentability of the disclosed invention. See MPEP 2111. In other words, the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. See In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000), In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999), and In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 2004 WL 1067528 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004). Any term that is not clearly defined in the specification must be given its plain meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.01. See also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989), Sunrace Roots Enter. Co. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 1302, 67 USPQ2d 1438, 1441 (Fed. Cir. 2003), Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 67 USPQ2d 1132, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The interpretation of the claims by their broadest reasonable interpretation reduces the possibility that, once the claims are issued, the claims are interpreted more broadly than justified. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969). Also, limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, the failure to significantly narrow definition or scope of the claims and supply arguments commensurate in scope with the claims implies the Applicant intends broad interpretation be given to the claims. The Examiner has interpreted the claims in parallel to the Applicant in the response and reiterates the need for the Applicant to distinctly define the claimed invention.
4. In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no suggestion to combine the references, i.e., Sarkar (US#9,628,223) in view of Lei (US#12,184,430) as proposed in the office action. The Examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily combined and that there must be some reason why one skilled in the art would be motivated to make the proposed combination of primary and secondary references. In re Nomiya, 184 USPQ 607 (CCPA 1975). However, there is no requirement that a motivation to make the modification be expressly articulated. The test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re McLaughlin, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
5. Applicant's argument with respect to the rejected claims that the cited reference fail to teach or suggest wherein “a plurality of different bundling operations from which the UE can select” (page 15, last paragraphs). In response to the above-mentioned argument, examiner respectively disagrees. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, as required by MPEP 2111, Applicant’s attention is directed to Figs. 3-5 of Sarkar (US#9,628,223) for the Techniques for bundling ACK information in a wireless communication system, in which the UE may generate and send a bundled or combined ACKs and NACKs for multiple (K) codewords and may generate bundled ACK information for all K codewords. In one design, the UE may perform bundling with a logical AND operation on the ACKs and NACKs for all K codewords. As shown in Fig. 4, at block 418, the receiver may obtain ACK, NACK, or DTX for each of the multiple codewords. The receiver may then map the ACKs, NACKs and DTXs for the multiple codewords to multiple bits of the bundled ACK information based on a predetermined mapping. The receiver may also perform bundling in other manners (Col. 6, line 41 to Col. 7, line 53 & Col. 11, lines 9 to Col. 12, line 9: one or more bundled bits of ACKs/NACKs for K total codewords, and bundled ACKs/NACKs may be used for other types of data e.g., delay tolerant data).
Since no substantial amendments have been made and the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, the claims are drawn to the same invention and the text of the prior art rejection can be found in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the references cited and applied in the last office actions for the rejection of the claims are maintained in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
7. Claims 1, 10-16, 28, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sarkar (US#9,628,223) in view of Lei (US#12,184,430).
Regarding claim 1, the references disclose a system, apparatus and techniques for sending acknowledgement (ACK) information in a wireless communication system, according to the essential features of the claims. Sarkar (US#9,628,223) discloses a method of operating a communications device configured to transmit signals to and/or to receive signals from a wireless communications network via a wireless radio interface provided by the wireless communications network (see Fig. 1 for a wireless communication system), the method comprising: receiving, from the wireless communications network, signals on one or more downlink channels, each of the downlink channels being within one of a plurality of downlink transmission occasions (Fig. 3; Col. 1, lines 30-41 & Col. 8, lines 25-37: a UE may receive multiple codewords in at least one downlink subframe. Each codeword may be encoded separately by a base station and may be decoded separately by the UE". "The eNB may send N code blocks with RV 0 for N codewords on the PDSCH in different downlink subframes"), determining, for each of the downlink transmission occasions, a value of an acknowledgement bit indicating whether or not one of the signals has been successfully received by the communications device on one of the downlink channels within that downlink transmission occasion (Fig. 3; Col. 5, lines 14-27 & Col. 9, lines 31-36: “if a downlink assignment is received, then the UE may process the PDSCH and decode the L codewords sent to the UE. For each codeword, the UE may provide an ACK if the codeword is decoded correctly or a NACK if the codeword is decoded in error". " PUCCH format 1a may be used to send one bit of ACK information for SIMO without bundling, e.g., one bit for ACK or NACK for one codeword."), performing, based on at least one bundling characteristic, one or more of a plurality of different bundling operations on the acknowledgement bits determined for each of the downlink transmission occasions to produce one or more bundled bits, wherein each of the bundled bits is produced by one or more of the performed bundling operations (Fig. 3; Col. 6, lines 12-24: "a UE may bundle or combine ACKs and NACKs for multiple (K) codewords and may generate bundled ACK information for all K codewords. In one design, the UE may perform bundling with a logical AND operation on the ACKs and NACKs for all K codewords. The UE may generate (i) a bundled ACK if ACKs are obtained for all K codewords or (ii) a bundled NACK if a NACK is obtained for any one of the K codewords"), and transmitting, to the wireless communications network, an indication of the one or more bundled bits (Fig. 3; Col. 6, lines 25-30: "An eNB may receive the bundled ACK information for the K codewords from the UE. If a bundled ACK is received, then the eNB may send the next set of codewords to the UE. Otherwise, if a bundled NACK is received, then the eNB may resend all K codewords since the eNB does not know which codewords were received in error by the UE").
However, Sarkar does not disclose expressly wherein acknowledgement bits determined for each of the DL transmission occasions. In the same field of endeavor, Lei (US#12,184,430) provides a method performed by a User Equipment (UE), including receiving, from a base station (BS), a signaling configuring a plurality of Downlink (DL) Hybrid Automatic Repeat reQuest (HARQ) processes, and Downlink Control Information (DCI) requesting HARQ-ACK feedback for each of the plurality of DL HARQ processes; for each of the plurality of DL HARQ processes, generating the HARQ-ACK feedback based on associated New Data Indicator (NDI) bit and HARQ-ACK information bit; and transmitting, to the BS, a HARQ-ACK codebook comprising the HARQ-ACK feedback for each of the plurality of DL HARQ processes (Figs. 10-11, Col. 1, lines 33-45 & Col. 12, line 59 to Col. 13, line 4).
One skilled in the art would have recognized the need for effectively and efficiently processing techniques for sending acknowledgement (ACK) information in a wireless communication system, and would have applied Lei’s determining a one shot Hybrid Automatic Repeat reQuest Acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) codebook into Sarkar’s techniques for sending acknowledgement (ACK) information in a wireless communication system. Therefore, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to apply Lei’s method and apparatus for determining one shot HARQ-ACK codebook into Sarkar’s bundling of ACK information in a wireless communication system with the motivation being to provide a method and system for transmission of data by a communication device in a wireless communications network.
Regarding claim 10, the reference further teaches wherein receiving Radio Resource Control, RRC, signaling from the wireless communications network, wherein the RRC signaling comprises one or more of an indication of the plurality of downlink transmission occasions, an indication of a number of the bundled bits which the communications device is to transmit to the wireless communications network, and, for each of the bundled bits which is to be transmitted, the at least one bundling characteristic (Lei: Fig. 2; Col. 6, line 65 to Col. 7, line 8).
Regarding claim 11, the reference further teaches wherein receiving a dynamic indication from the wireless communications network, and determining, based on the dynamic indication, one or more of the plurality of downlink transmission occasions, a number of the bundled bits which the communications device is to transmit to the wireless communications network, and, for each of the bundled bits which is to be transmitted, the at least one bundling characteristic (Sarkar: Fig. 3; Col. 10, lines 31-51).
Regarding claim 12, the reference further teaches wherein receiving, from the wireless communications network, one of an activation downlink control information, DCI, indicating that one or more of the downlink transmission occasions are activated and therefore are used by the communications device for receiving downlink signals from the wireless communications network, and a deactivation DCI indicating that one or more of the downlink transmission occasions are deactivated and therefore are not to be used by the communications device for receiving downlink signals from the wireless communications network, wherein a field of the one of the activation DCI and the deactivation DCI comprises the dynamic indication (Lei: Fig. 10; Col. 12, line 59 to Col. 13, line 29).
Regarding claim 13, the reference further teaches wherein the dynamic indication comprises an indication of the plurality of downlink transmission occasions and an indication of one of a plurality of preconfigured bundling operation sets, wherein each of the bundling operation sets defines both the number of the bundled bits which the communications device is to transmit to the wireless communications network, and, for each of the bundled bits which is to be transmitted, the at least one bundling characteristic (Sarkar: Fig. 3; Col. 10, lines 31-51).
Regarding claim 14, the reference further teaches wherein receiving, from the wireless communications network, a Medium Access Control, MAC, Control Element, CE, wherein the MAC CE comprises one or more of an indication of the plurality of downlink transmission occasions, an indication of a number of the bundled bits which the communications device is to transmit to the wireless communications network, and, for each of the bundled bits which is to be transmitted, the at least one bundling characteristic (Lei: Figs. 12-13; Col. 16, lines 22-63).
Regarding claim 15, the reference further teaches wherein the downlink transmission occasions are Semi-Persistent Scheduling, SPS, resource instances forming an SPS group, wherein the SPS resource instances are periodically located in a plurality of downlink resource units of the wireless radio interface (Lei: Col. 12, lines 36-56).
Regarding claims 16, 28, 31, they are apparatus claims corresponding to the method claims 1, 15 discussed above. Therefore, claims 16, 28, 31 are analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 1, 15 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 2-9, 30, 32 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
9. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest wherein the at least one bundling characteristic comprises a minimum acknowledgement number, KMIN, and the method
Comprises: determining, for each of at least one of the bundled bits, the bundling operation to be
performed based on a value of KMIN associated with that bundled bit, and wherein each of the at least one of the bundled bits produced by the determined bundling operation to be performed is to indicate either a positive acknowledgement, ACK, if the values of the acknowledgement bits indicate that a number of the downlink transmission occasions within which one of the signals has been successfully received by the communications device on one of the downlink channels is
greater than or equal to the value of KMIN associated with that bundled bit, or a negative acknowledgement, NACK, if the values of the acknowledgement bits indicate that a number of the downlink transmission occasions within which one of the signals has been successfully received by the communications device on one of the downlink channels is less than the value of KMIN associated with that bundled bit, as specifically recited in the claims.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is indicated in PTO form 892.
11. Applicant's future amendments need to comply with the requirements of MPEP § 714.02, MPEP § 2163.04 and MPEP § 2163.06.
"with respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims." See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should * * * specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). See In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262,191 USPQ at 96 (emphasis added). "The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification." Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm'r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01 (i) and § 1302.01.
Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner's amendment) 07find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1,75(d)(1 ). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced."
"USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2106. "
12. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION 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 extension fee 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.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. Phan whose telephone number is (571) 272-3149. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri from 6:00 to 3:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor Chirag Shah, can be reached on (571) 272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
14. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at toll free 1-866-217-9197.
Mphan
Feb. 14, 2026
/MAN U PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477