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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/14/26 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/25/26 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to amendment filed on 8/14/26. Claims 1, 4-6, 8-13, 17, 19-23, and 25-26 are currently pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8-13, 17, 19-23, and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Chen et al. (US 2024/0154736) in view of TCL COMMUNICATION "UE feedback enhancements for HARQ-ACK" 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #104bis-e, R1-2102922, April 2021, 6 pages (hereinafter “TCL”).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a method for hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback, performed by a terminal device, comprising:
determining an initial slot (slot n+2) where a hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) transmission is located (see “As shown in FIG. 4c, assuming that the terminal receives an SPS PDSCH sent by the network side device on a carrier 1 (CC1) in a slot n, and according to a network indication, a first HARQ-ACK feedback time of HARQ ACK information corresponding to the SPS PDSCH is slot n+2 (k=2)…” [0093]);
determining that a first physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resource on the initial slot is invalid (conflicts with DL resource) determining a valid second PUCCH resource (slot n+4), and sending the HARQ-ACK through the second PUCCH resource (see “However, because the slot n+2 conflicts with the DL resource, the terminal postpones the HARQ-ACK information to subsequent UL resources. Based on this, according to the foregoing method 0, the terminal can search for subsequent available UL resources on the current carrier. If it is determined that the slot n+4 is an available UL resource, the terminal transmits the HARQ-ACK information in the slot n+4” [0094]), wherein a slot where the second PUCCH resource is located is a slot after the initial slot and no later than a last delay feedback slot (slot n+2+6) for the HARQ- ACK (see Fig. 4c slot n+4 is located after slot n+2 and “In other words, the HARQ-ACK information corresponding to the SPS PDSCH can be postponed to a slot n+2+6 at most for feedback” [0093] which suggests that the HARQ-ACK information is transmitted no later than slot n+2+6);
wherein the last delay feedback slot is determined based on the initial slot (slot n+2) and a maximum delay feedback slot offset value (KDef=6)(see “As shown in FIG. 4c, assuming that the terminal receives an SPS PDSCH sent by the network side device on a carrier 1 (CC1) in a slot n, and according to a network indication, a first HARQ-ACK feedback time of HARQ-ACK information corresponding to the SPS PDSCH is slot n+2 (k=2), a maximum delay time (that is, a delay time) of the HARQ-ACK of the SPS PDSCH is KDef=6” [0093]), or the last delay feedback slot is determined from more than one candidate last delay feedback slot, or the last delay feedback slot is determined based on a time-domain resource allocation (TDRA) table; or the last delay feedback slot corresponds to the first PUCCH resource;
wherein determining the last delay feedback slot based on the initial slot and the maximum delay feedback slot offset value comprises determining the last delay feedback slot based on the initial slot (slot n+2), a semi-persistent configured time division duplexing (TDD) structure (see Figure 4c for slot structure), and the maximum delay feedback slot offset value (KDef=6) (see “As shown in FIG. 4c, assuming that the terminal receives an SPS PDSCH sent by the network side device on a carrier 1 (CC1) in a slot n, and according to a network indication, a first HARQ-ACK feedback time of HARQ-ACK information corresponding to the SPS PDSCH is slot n+2 (k=2), a maximum delay time (that is, a delay time) of the HARQ-ACK of the SPS PDSCH is KDef=6. In other words, the HARQ-ACK information corresponding to the SPS PDSCH can be postponed to a slot n+2+6 at most for feedback” [0093] which suggest the at most slot (slot n+2+6), or “last delay feedback slot”, is determined from slot n+2, the slot structure in Fig. 4c, and KDef value);
wherein the TDD structure comprises a plurality of slots (see Fig. 4c slot n through slot n+6),
a slot among the plurality of slots in which the initial slot is located is determined as a first slot (slot n+2),
an unavailable slot after the first slot in the TDD structure is skipped (slot n+2+1), available slots after the first slot in the TDD structure are sequentially counted, and a slot at which a number of the available slots reaches the maximum delay feedback slot offset value is determined as a second slot (see “However, because the slot n+2 conflicts with the DL resource, the terminal postpones the HARQ-ACK information to subsequent UL resources. Based on this, according to the foregoing method 0, the terminal can search for subsequent available UL resources on the current carrier. If it is determined that the slot n+4 is an available UL resource, the terminal transmits the HARQ-ACK information in the slot n+4” [0094] which suggest the terminal searches for subsequent available UL resources until an available slot is found to transmit the HARQ-ACK information. Therefore in the example disclosed in paragraphs 93-94, if slot n+2+6 is an available UL resource and slots n+2 through n+2+5 are invalid, then slot n+2+1 would be skipped, slots n+2+1 through n+2+5 would be counted, and the HARQ-ACK information would be transmitted at slot n+2+6 which is the maximum delay time KDef=6);
the last delay feedback slot is determined based on a slot offset between the second slot and the first slot (KDef=6 is the slot offset between slot n+2 and slot n+2+6).
Chen does not explicitly teach wherein the maximum delay feedback slot offset value is determined based on a maximum number of delayable times for the initial slot. In an analogous prior art reference, TCL teaches a maximum delay feedback slot offset value (k1def,max) is determined based on a maximum number of delayable times (K1 set) for the initial slot (see “The deferral limitation should be given in the total PDSCH to HARQ-ACK delay/offset, i.e. k1eff = k1+k1def <= K1def,max and the k1def,max should be the maximum k1 value of the configured K1 set” [p. 3, section 2.1.1, Proposal 5] which reads on “maximum number of delayable times” since the maximum k1 value is selected out of the K1 set, wherein each k1 value of the K1 set is a delayable time for the initial slot). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chen to allow the maximum delay feedback slot offset value to be determined based on a maximum number of delayable times for the initial slot, as taught by TCL, in order to indicate offset values for PDSCH to HARQ-ACK in the time domain so that the HARQ-ACK may be transmitted in the next available uplink slot.
Regarding claim 4, TCL teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising at least one of:
determining the maximum delay feedback slot offset value for the HARQ-ACK based on a protocol agreement (SPS configuration) (see “The SPS HARQ-ACK deferral is configured per SPS configuration” [p. 2, section 2.1.1, Agreements]);
determining more than one candidate maximum delay feedback slot offset value (K1 set) for the HARQ-ACK based on a protocol agreement, and determining the maximum delay feedback slot offset value (maximum k1 value) from the more than one candidate maximum delay feedback slot offset value (see “The deferral limitation should be given in the total PDSCH to HARQ-ACK delay/offset, i.e. k1eff = k1+k1def <= K1def,max and the k1def,max should be the maximum k1 value of the configured K1 set” [p. 3, section 2.1.1, Proposal 6] which suggests maximum k1 value is determined from “more than one candidate” k1 values of the configured K1 set);
expanding a time-domain resource allocation (TDRA) table based on a protocol agreement, and acquiring a corresponding slot offset value from the TDRA table, and determining the slot offset value as the maximum delay feedback slot offset value; or
acquiring a slot offset value corresponding to the first PUCCH resource based on a protocol agreement, and determining the slot offset value as the maximum delay feedback slot offset value.
Regarding claim 5, TCL teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
acquiring a maximum K1 value among more than one initial slot K1 configured for the HARQ-ACK (configured K1 set); and
determining the maximum delay feedback slot offset value based on the maximum K1 value (see “The deferral limitation should be given in the total PDSCH to HARQ-ACK delay/offset, i.e. k1eff = k1+k1def <= K1def,max and the k1def,max should be the maximum k1 value of the configured K1 set” [p. 3, section 2.1.1, Proposal 6]).
Regarding claim 6, TCL teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein determining the maximum delay feedback slot offset value based on the maximum K1 value comprises:
determining the maximum K1 value as the maximum delay feedback slot offset value (see “The deferral limitation should be given in the total PDSCH to HARQ-ACK delay/offset, i.e. k1eff = k1+k1def <= K1def,max and the k1def,max should be the maximum k1 value of the configured K1 set” [p. 3, section 2.1.1, Proposal 6]); or
performing an operation on the maximum K1 value according to a preset operation rule, and determining a value obtained from the operation as the maximum delay feedback slot offset value.
Regarding claim 8, TCL teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining the maximum delay feedback slot offset value for the HARQ-ACK based on a transmission cycle (periodicity) of a semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) (see “For different traffic types with different latency requirements, it may configure a specific SPS configuration with different periodicities” [p. 2, section 2.1.1] which suggests the claimed “transmission cycle of a SPS PDSCH” because specific SPS configurations, which include maximum k1 value(s), are used for PDSCH of different periodicities); or
determining the maximum delay feedback slot offset value for the HARQ-ACK based on a grouping binding size or a time window length of the SPS PDSCH (see “Considering the transmission reliability and less specification impact, it is feasible to use logical 'OR' to bundle SPS HARQ-ACK of N bits into a single bit. In this case, a time window or bundling bit size needs to be specified” [p.5, section 2.2, Proposal 9]).
Regarding claim 9, TCL teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a first configuration instruction sent by a network device, wherein the first configuration instruction is configured to indicate the maximum delay feedback slot offset value (see “The SPS HARQ-ACK deferral is configured per SPS configuration” [p. 2, section 2.1.1, Agreements]).
Regarding claim 10, TCL teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a second configuration instruction sent by a network device, and receiving an indication instruction sent by the network device, determining, based on the indication instruction, one slot offset value among more than one candidate maximum delay feedback slot offset value indicated by the second configuration instruction, and determining the determined slot offset value as the maximum delay feedback slot offset value (see “The SPS HARQ-ACK deferral is configured per SPS configuration” [p. 2, section 2.1.1, Agreements] and “The deferral limitation should be given in the total PDSCH to HARQ-ACK delay/offset, i.e. k1eff = k1+k1def <= K1def,max and the k1def,max should be the maximum k1 value of the configured K1 set” [p. 3, section 2.1.1, Proposal 6] which suggests that a second SPS configuration may be received by the UE with another maximum k1 value).
Regarding claim 11, TCL teaches a method for hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback, performed by a network device, comprising:
receiving a hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) sent by a terminal device on a valid physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resource (see “For example, the first instance in time of a scheduled PUCCH that does not collide with any invalid or downlink symbols after the conflict occurs is selected to transmit the deferred HARQ-ACK feedback” [p. 3, section 2.1.1, Proposal 1]), wherein a slot where the PUCCH resource is located is a slot after an initial slot where the HARQ-ACK is located (see “Option 1: Deferring HARQ-ACK until a next (e.g., first) available PUCCH)” [p.2, section 2.1, Agreements]) and no later than a last delay feedback slot (maximum k1 value) (see “The deferral limitation should be given in the total PDSCH to HARQ-ACK delay/offset, i.e. k1eff = k1+k1def <= K1def,max and the k1def,max should be the maximum k1 value of the configured K1 set” [p. 3, section 2.1.1, Proposal 6]);
wherein the last delay feedback slot is determined based on the initial slot (k1) and a maximum delay feedback slot offset value (k1eff), or the last delay feedback slot is determined from more than one candidate last delay feedback slot (see “The deferral limitation should be given in the total PDSCH to HARQ-ACK delay/offset, i.e. k1eff = k1+k1def <= K1def,max and the k1def,max should be the maximum k1 value of the configured K1 set” [p. 3, section 2.1.1, Proposal 6] which suggests maximum k1 value “is determined from more than one candidate” k1 values of the configured K1 set), or the last delay feedback slot is determined based on a time-domain resource allocation (TDRA) table; or the last delay feedback slot corresponds to a first PUCCH resource.
Regarding claim 12, TCL teaches 1 the method according to claim 11, further comprising:
sending a first configuration instruction to the terminal device, wherein the first configuration instruction is configured to indicate the maximum delay feedback slot offset value (see “The SPS HARQ-ACK deferral is configured per SPS configuration” [p. 2, section 2.1.1, Agreements]).
Regarding claim 13, TCL teaches the method according to claim 11, further comprising:
sending a second configuration instruction to the terminal device, and sending an indication instruction to the terminal device, wherein the second configuration instruction comprises more than one candidate maximum delay feedback slot offset value, the indication instruction is configured to indicate one slot offset value among the more than one candidate maximum delay feedback slot offset value (see “The SPS HARQ-ACK deferral is configured per SPS configuration” [p. 2, section 2.1.1, Agreements] and “The deferral limitation should be given in the total PDSCH to HARQ-ACK delay/offset, i.e. k1eff = k1+k1def <= K1def,max and the k1def,max should be the maximum k1 value of the configured K1 set” [p. 3, section 2.1.1, Proposal 6] which suggests that a second SPS configuration may be transmitted to the UE with another maximum k1 value).
Claims 17 and 19 recite subject matter similar to claim 1 and are therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claims 20 and 21 recite subject matter similar to claim 11 and are therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claim 22 recites subject matter similar to claim 4 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claim 23 recites subject matter similar to claim 5 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claim 25 recites subject matter similar to claim 8 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claim 26 recites subject matter similar to claim 10 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8-13, 17, 19-23, and 25-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nam T Huynh whose telephone number is (571)272-5970. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at 571-270-0375. 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.
/NAM T HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights