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
The Amendment filed 04/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-10 and 12-14 have been amended. Claims 4, 11 and 15 are canceled. Claims 1-3, 5-10 and 12-14 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/13/2026, have been fully considered and entered but they are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-8, 10, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastegardoost et al. (US 20240040587 A1) hereinafter Rastegardoost.
Regarding claim 1,
Rastegardoost teaches a method performed by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system (UE, Fig. 1B), the method comprising:
Receiving a first higher layer configuration of a number of hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) processes ([0066]);
receiving first single downlink control information (DCI) scheduling a plurality of physical downlink shared channels (PDSCHs): and receiving the plurality of PDSCHs based on the first single DCI, wherein a first HARQ process identifier (ID) is indicated by the first single DCI, and wherein the first HARO process ID indicated by the first single DCI is applied to a first PDSCH among the plurality of PDSCHs and the first HARQ process ID is increased by 1 sequentially for each subsequent PDSCH of the plurality of PDSCHs in scheduled order, with a modulo operation (For multiple PUSCHs/PDSCHs scheduled by a single DCI, NDI and/or RV may be signaled per PUSCH/PDSCH. A number of NDI bits and/or RV bits in the DCI may be determined based on the configured TDRA table. HARQ process ID signaled in the DCI may apply to a first scheduled PUSCH/PDSCH of the multiple PUSCHs/PDSCHs scheduled by the DCI. HARQ process ID may be incremented by 1 for subsequent PUSCHs/PDSCHs in the scheduled order (with modulo operation as needed [0261]) of the number of HARQ processes configured by the first higher layer configuration (For example, modulo operation may be used if the number of scheduled PUSCHs are more than the available/configured number of HARQ IDs [0252]. This is makes it obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art to set the modulo operation of the number of HARQ processes for PUSCH and PDSCH).
Regarding claim 3, is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1, where Rastegardoost [0261] teaches the same method for multiple PUSCH and multiple PDSCH.
Regarding claims [5, 7] “Base station method”, [8, 10] “UE device”, and [12, 14] “base station”, are rejected under the same reasoning as claims [1, 3] “UE method”, where Rastegardoost teaches method and device for UE and base station (Fig. 1B; [0049]-[0055]).
Claims 2, 6, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastegardoost in view of in view of Matsuda et al. (US 20220294569 A1) hereinafter Matsuda.
Regarding claim 2,
Rastegardoost teaches all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Rastegardoost des not explicitly teach transmitting capability information associated with a supported maximum number of HARQ processes, wherein the supported maximum number of HARQ processes for a non-terrestrial network (NTN) communication is 32.
Matsuda teaches transmitting capability information associated with a supported maximum number of HARQ processes, wherein the supported maximum number of HARQ processes for a non-terrestrial network (NTN) communication is 32 (the number of HARQ processes may be switched to 32 [0269]-[0271] for NTN [0261).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Matsuda to the teachings of Rastegardoost. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would enhance performance for non-terrestrial networks, NTNs (Matsuda [0003]).
Regarding claims [6] “Base station method”, [9] “UE device”, and [13] “base station”, are rejected under the same reasoning as claim [2] “UE method”, where Rastegardoost teaches method and device for UE and base station (Fig. 1B; [0049]-[0055]).
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 AYMAN A ABAZA whose telephone number is (571)270-0422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5. 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, Deborah Reynolds, can be reached at 571-272-0734. 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.
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights