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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/30/24 and 9/18/24 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they pertain to a “computer-readable storage medium” which according to the specification, “can be any available medium that a computer can access” [par 325], which may include transitory mediums and is non-statutory.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-13, 17, and 19-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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, TCL teaches a method for hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback, performed by a terminal device, comprising:
determining an initial slot where a hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) transmission (SPS HARQ-ACK) is located (see “…for SPS HARQ-ACK deferral, to determine valid symbols in the initial slot/sub-slot a collision with semi-static OL symbols, SSB and CORESET#0 is regarded as "invalid' or 'no symbols for UL transmission'” [p.3, section 2.1.1, Proposal 3]);
determining that a first physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resource on the initial slot is invalid (see “…for SPS HARQ-ACK deferral, to determine valid symbols in the initial slot/sub-slot a collision with semi-static OL symbols, SSB and CORESET#0 is regarded as ‘invalid' or 'no symbols for UL transmission'” [p.3, section 2.1.1, Proposal 3]), determining a valid second PUCCH resource (next (e.g., first) available PUCCH) (see “Option 1: Deferring HARQ-ACK until a next (e.g., first) available PUCCH)” [p.2, section 2.1, Agreements]), and sending the HARQ-ACK through the second 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 second PUCCH resource is located is a slot after the initial slot (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) for the HARQ-ACK (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) (see “In order to minimize the specification impact, we propose that the value of k1eff should be limited to one of the existing k1 values in the configured K1 set” [p. 3, section 2.1.1, Proposal 6]), 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 the first PUCCH resource.
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 7, TCL teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
determining a maximum number of delayable times for the initial slot; and
determining the maximum delay feedback slot offset value based on the maximum number of delayable times (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 number of k1 values of the configured K1 set reads on the claimed “maximum number of delayable times” since they are candidates for the maximum k1 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).
Claim 19 recites subject matter similar to claim 1 and is 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 24 recites subject matter similar to claim 7 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.
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