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 .
Response to Amendment
This communication is considered fully responsive to the amendment filed on 01/07/2026.
Claims 1, 32, 13, 23, 24 and 28 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims filed on 01/07/2026 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are related solely to combined alternatives that were separated and addressed in the instant Office Action. The combined alternatives are addressed with newly identified prior art, thus rendering the applicant’s arguments moot.
The applicant also presented other arguments drawn to the various dependent claims. However, said other arguments are all dependency based, depending from the arguments drawn to the independent claims’ limitations discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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) 1-2, 6, 10-13, 17, 21-24, 27-28 and 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as being anticipated by El Hamss et al. (US 2021/0328728, “Hamss”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Hamss unless otherwise mentioned.
Hamss comprises the following features:
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding Claim 1, an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising:
memory; and at least one processor, coupled to the memory (See Fig. 1B) and configured to:
receive, from a base station, downlink control information (DCI) including a downlink assignment index (DAI) indicator and a transport block (TB) counter indicator ([0079] “A base station (e.g., a gNB) may use a counter downlink assignment index (DAI) and/or a total DAI in the DCI to indicate the number of previously scheduled TBs.”);
determine, based on the DAI indicator and the TB counter indicator, a number of acknowledgment/negative acknowledgment (ACK/NACK) bits for a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) codebook ([0098] “a WTRU may be configured with counter DAI and/or total DAI to determine the number of scheduled TBs and the sequence of A/N bits within the HARQ-ACK codebook.”); and
transmit, to the base station, the HARQ codebook including the number of ACK/NACK bits ([0098] “The WTRU may, upon detecting a missing DCI, transmit the HARQ-ACK codebook with only TBs received prior to the misdetection time.”).
Regarding Claim 13, it is an apparatus claims at a base station corresponding to the apparatus claim 1 in a reciprocal way, and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 23, it is a method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 1, and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 28, it is a method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 13, and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 13.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claims 2 and 24, the apparatus of claim 1 and the method of claim 23, respectively, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine, based on the DAI indicator, whether at least one previous DCI is not received ([0098] “The WTRU then receives a DCI scheduling TB with counter DAI c=3 in a subframe 408 (e.g., subframe n+10). The WTRU determines that at least one DCI is missing and then reports HARQ-ACK feedback for only the TB in subframe 402 and the TB in subframe 404 (TB.sub.1 and TB.sub.2).”).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, the apparatus of claim 1 and the apparatus of claim 13, respectively, wherein the TB counter indicator indicates a total number of P TBs in a most recent number of K previous DCI (aforesaid [0079] “A base station (e.g., a gNB) may use a counter downlink assignment index (DAI) and/or a total DAI in the DCI to indicate the number of previously scheduled TBs” Note that total DAI performs the expressly disclosed previously scheduled TB count function. That count maps to P. K can correspond to the number of preceding scheduling DCIs contributing to that indicated TB count. K can be 1.), the K previous DCI indexed based on the DAI indicator ([0098] “as shown in FIG. 4, a WTRU received two DCIs scheduling a first TB in a subframe 402 (e.g., subframe n) and a second TB in a subframe 404 (e.g., subframe n+3) with counter DAI c=0 and c=1, respectively. The WTRU then receives a DCI scheduling TB with counter DAI c=3 in a subframe 408 (e.g., subframe n+10).”).
Regarding claim 10, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine a location of the number of ACK/NACK bits in the HARQ codebook based on the TB counter indicator (See aforesaid [0098]).
Regarding claims 11, 21, 27 and 30, the apparatus of claim 1, the apparatus of claim 13, the method of claim 23 and the method of claim 28, respectively, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to generate the HARQ codebook to include the number of ACK/NACK bits, the number of ACK/NACK bits corresponding to N total TBs scheduled by a number of DCI transmissions, the DCI included in the number of DCI transmissions (See aforesaid [0098]).
Regarding claims 12 and 22, the apparatus of claim 1 and the apparatus of claim 13, respectively, further comprising a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor (See Fig. 1B).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 8, 14, 16, 19, 25-26 and 29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El Hamss et al. (US 2021/0328728, “Hamss”) in view of Yin et al. (US 2020/0374045, “Yin”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Hamss unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 3, 14, 25 and 29, it is noted that while disclosing HARQ enhancement, Hamss does not specifically teach about missing counter DAI. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Yin as follows;
the apparatus of claim 2, the apparatus of claim 13, the method of claim 24 and the method of claim 24, respectively, wherein the number of ACK/NACK bits includes one or more NACK bits ([Yin, 0047] “For dynamic codebook determination, the HARQ-ACK bits for each sub-codebook is generated by concatenating the corresponding HARQ-ACK bits of each DL transmission based on the order of counter DAI until the total DAI value is reached. In case of missing counter DAI, NACK or DTX should be padded to the HARQ-ACK bits corresponding to the missing counter DAI.”) that correspond to one or more TBs of the at least one previous DCI when the at least one previous DCI is not received ([Yin, 0133] “there is some ambiguity if the UE 102 misses at least one DCI for DL transmission. The miss detection can be determined by missing counter DAI values and a miss-match with the total DAI.”, and [Yin, 0134] “For dynamic codebook determination, the HARQ-ACK bits for each sub-codebook is generated by concatenating the corresponding HARQ-ACK bits of each DL transmission based on the order of counter DAI until the total DAI value is reached. In case of missing counter DAI, NACK or DTX should be padded to the HARQ-ACK bits corresponding to the missing counter DAI.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Hamss by using the features of Yin in order to improve communication flexibility and efficiency such that “the present disclosure relates to codebook determination of HARQ-ACK multiplexing with fallback downlink control information (DCI) and code block group (CBG) configurations.” [Yin, 0002].
Regarding claims 5 and 26, the apparatus of claim 3 and the method of claim 25, respectively, wherein the TB counter indicator indicates a number of the one or more NACK bits to include in the HARQ codebook for the at least one previous DCI that is not received ([Yin, 0140] “If Method 1 above is used (i.e. the actual number of HARQ-ACK bits are indicated in the counter DAI and total DAI), the fallback operation can reduce the codebook size dynamically since the gNB 160 can indicate the correct number of counter DAI and total DAI in each DL assignment. Even if some DAI is missed, the UE 102 may pad NACK to the corresponding bits in the HARQ-ACK codebook.”).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein a number of P bits for the HARQ codebook corresponds to P=p* T, where T is a value of the TB counter indicator and p is a configured value associated with a modular number ([Yin, 0107] “the number of HARQ-ACK bits (e.g., the maximum number of HARQ-ACK bits) to be reported for each DL transmission (no_HARQ-ACK_perDLTx) in a slot/min-slot of CBG configured CCs may be configured by higher layer signaling (e.g., RRC signaling). …In yet another method, the no_HARQ-ACK_perDLTx may be determined based on the average of the number of CBGs for all CBG configured CCs, and rounded to the nearest allowed number of CBGs among the values of {2,4,8}. If the average lies in the middle of two values, the smaller value can be used in one method, and the larger value can be used in another method.”, and [Yin, 0108] “With no_HARQ-ACK_perDLTx parameter, in the case of dynamic codebook size determination, for the CBG level sub-codebook, the number of HARQ-ACK bits in a UL transmission can be determined by the total DAI and the no_HARQ-ACK_perDLTx parameter with derived total DAI value multiplied by no_HARQ-ACK_perDLTx.”).
The rational and motivation for adding this teaching of Yin are the same as for claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the TB counter indicator indicates a number of the one or more NACK bits to include in the HARQ codebook for the at least one previous DCI that is not received from the base station ([Yin, 0140] “If Method 1 above is used (i.e. the actual number of HARQ-ACK bits are indicated in the counter DAI and total DAI), the fallback operation can reduce the codebook size dynamically since the gNB 160 can indicate the correct number of counter DAI and total DAI in each DL assignment. Even if some DAI is missed, the UE 102 may pad NACK to the corresponding bits in the HARQ-ACK codebook.”).
Claim(s) 4 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El Hamss et al. (US 2021/0328728, “Hamss”) in view of Yin et al. (US 2020/0374045, “Yin”) and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0150181, “Kim”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Hamss unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 4, it is noted that while disclosing HARQ enhancement, Hamss does not specifically teach about consecutive DCIs. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Kim as follows;
the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the at least one previous DCI that is not received includes at least one of consecutive DCI that is not received ([Kim, 0231] “In case of TB-level C-DAI, a bit-width of a corresponding DAI field may be set to ceiling{log.sub.2(the number of maximum slots for which scheduling is allowed within the BW)}. For example, under the assumption that the UE is not likely to miss four continuous DCI, the bit-width of the DAI field may be set to 2 bits.”, and [0245] “since the UE has received DAI values 1 and 2 but have not received DAI value 3, the UE may configure 8 bits of HARQ-ACK information on TB corresponding DAI 1/2 and process the other 4 bits to be subjected to DTX (that is, NACK transmission) in configuring HARQ-ACK codebook transmitted at slot#T+8. Also, in configuring HARQ-ACK codebook transmitted at slot#T+9, since the UE has received all of DAI values 1, 2 and 3, the UE may configure 12 bits of HARQ-ACK information on TB corresponding DAI 1/2/3.”) or non-consecutive DCI that is not received (This alternative is not examined.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Hamss by using the features of Kim in order to maintain consistent feedback positions when consecutive DSIs are missed such that “the BS and the UE may transmit or receive ACK information without mismatch in ACK information therebetween.” [Kim, 0033].
Regarding claim 15, the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the at least one previous DCI that is not received from the base station includes at least one of consecutive DCI that is not received from the base station([Kim, 0231] “In case of TB-level C-DAI, a bit-width of a corresponding DAI field may be set to ceiling{log.sub.2(the number of maximum slots for which scheduling is allowed within the BW)}. For example, under the assumption that the UE is not likely to miss four continuous DCI, the bit-width of the DAI field may be set to 2 bits.”, and [0245] “since the UE has received DAI values 1 and 2 but have not received DAI value 3, the UE may configure 8 bits of HARQ-ACK information on TB corresponding DAI 1/2 and process the other 4 bits to be subjected to DTX (that is, NACK transmission) in configuring HARQ-ACK codebook transmitted at slot#T+8. Also, in configuring HARQ-ACK codebook transmitted at slot#T+9, since the UE has received all of DAI values 1, 2 and 3, the UE may configure 12 bits of HARQ-ACK information on TB corresponding DAI 1/2/3.”) or non-consecutive DCI that is not received (This alternative is not examined.).
The rational and motivation for adding this teaching of Kim are the same as for claim 4.
Claim(s) 7, 9, 18 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El Hamss et al. (US 2021/0328728, “Hamss”) in view of Yi et al. (US 2022/0346104, “Yi”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Hamss unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claims 7 and 18, it is noted that while disclosing HARQ enhancement, Hamss does not specifically teach about a bit of DAI. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Yi as follows;
the apparatus of claim 6 and the apparatus of claim 17, respectively, wherein K = 2n-1 when the DAI indicator includes n bits ([Yi, 0257] “The first DAI may be 1 bit when a semi-static HARQ-ACK codebook generation mechanism is used. The first DAI may be 2 bits or 4 bits when a dynamic HARQ-ACK codebook generation mechanism is used.”, [Yi, 0471] “The DCI and the previous DCI may share (e.g., count, consider, use) a DAI counter procedure that was used by the base station.”, and [Yi, 0474] “a base station and a wireless device may determine a counter DAI of a DCI based on a number of HARQ-ACK bits for one or more PDSCHs, SPS PDSCH release(s), SCell dormancy indication scheduled by a previous DCI and a first counter DAI value of the previous DCI.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Hamss by using the features of DAI counter based on the transport block related feedback count of the preceding DCI as taught by Yi in order to align the counter update with the scheduled transport blocks such that “reduce ambiguity in determining a HARQ-ACK codebook size. The wireless device may determine a number of HARQ-ACK bits based on C-DAI/T-DAI of one or more DCIs mapping to the PUCCH resource.” [Yi, 0721].
Regarding claims 9 and 20, the apparatus of claim 1 and the apparatus of claim 13, respectively, wherein a value T of the TB counter indicator corresponds to T=P-K, where P indicates a number of bits for the HARQ codebook and K indicates a number of most recent previous DCI indexed based on the DAI indicator ([Yi, 0497] “The wireless device may map a HARQ-ACK bit for the second PDSCH at the 5.sup.th bit.”, [Yi, 0471] “he previous DCI may be a DCI that occurs in a same PDCCH monitoring occasion or previous PDCCH monitoring occasion than the DCI. The base station may not schedule any DCI, based on the DAI counter, between the previous DCI and the DCI.” P == Five HARQ-ACK bits of Yi, T == Third DCI T-DAI value of 4, so 4=5-1.).
The rational and motivation for adding this teaching of Yi are the same as for claim 7.
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry H. Kim whose telephone number and email address are as follows; 571-272-5009, harry.kim2@uspto.gov.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from www.uspto.gov. For questions or assistance, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/HARRY H KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
