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 .
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)(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.
Claims 1-5, 9, 14 and 23-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TARIMALA et al PG PUB 2020/0367097.
Re Claims 1, 24, 29 and 30, TARIMARLA et al teaches in figure 5, 520, a UE (at least one memory and processor) receiving from a BS 502 a configured duration for a HARQ retransmission timer duration 511 [0076]; UE 504 identify a first uplink data 513 which can be either uplink data or uplink control information (a traffic type) [0078] and transmits the first uplink data (another communication) 514 wherein the HARQ retransmission timer is associated with the first uplink data [0079];
520 determining whether the HARQ retransmission Timer has expired wherein the timer allows the UE to complete a HARQ retransmission process and prevents discarding of the first uplink information (a HARQ state in association with a HARQ state retention timer) [0083]; the UE selectively discards the HARQ state based on the HARQ retransmission timer expiring and upon receiving a second DCI 525 indicating a NDI bit toggled (a new NDI) [0087]; the UE transmitting a retransmit first uplink data 524 (a communication) associated with the HARQ retransmission process [0086] and receiving the second DCI 525.
Re Claims 2, 25, TARIMARLA et al teaches based on the retransmit first uplink data 524 (the communication), the HARQ Retransmission Timer 520 is a first time in association with the HARQ retransmission process [0084] and receiving the second DCI 525.
Re Claims 3, 26, TARIMARLA et al teaches Retransmit first uplink data 524 associated with the HARQ retransmission process [0084] not being discarded based on the NDI being not toggled (same as a current NDI). Re Claims 4, 27, TARIMARLA et al teaches the HARQ retransmission process (the HARQ state) is retained based on the HARQ retransmission Timer being active (not expired) [0084].
Re Claims 5, 14, 27, TARIMARLA et al teaches the UE selectively discards the HARQ state based on the HARQ retransmission timer expiring and upon receiving a second DCI 525 indicating a NDI bit toggled (a new NDI; a redundancy value) [0087].
Re Claim 9, TARIMARLA et al teaches a BS configuring a HARQ retransmission timer 511 [0074] wherein the duration of the timer can be a fixed value until it is reconfigured.
Re Claim 23, TARIMARLA et al teaches in figure 2B, a PDCCH occupies 3 symbols (monitoring configuration) in the DL system BWP [0051] for receiving the DCI (the second DCI).
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.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TARIMALA et al PG PUB 2020/0367097 in view of XUE et al PG PUB 2021/0329481.
Re Claim 7, TARIMARLA et al fails to explicitly teach "the HARQ retention timer is associated with a DRX cycle of the UE". However, XUE et al teaches DRX parameters includes DRX cycle and HARQ retransmission timer [0086]. By combining the teachings, the HARQ retransmission timer can be associated the DRX cycle to promote power saving at the UE. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to promote power saving by associating the HARQ retransmission timer with the DRX
cycle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claim 11, TARIMARLA et al fails explicitly teach "a duration of the HARQ retention timer is less than. DRX duration". XUE et al teaches in figure 5 a DRX cycle including a On-Duration and Opportunity for DRX. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have configured the HARQ retransmission timer less the DRX cycle to enable the Opportunity for DRX in the DRX cycle to support power saving at the UE. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Claims 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TARIMALA et al PG PUB 2020/0367097 in view of HUANG et al PG PUB 2024/0223323.
Re Claims 17, 18 and 20, TARIMARLA et al fails to teach "the DCI misdetection information". However, Huang et al teaches a UE suspends communication with the serving cell for a measurement gap (the DCI misdetection information; a likelihood...not to receive the first DCI) to measure the measurement signals from neighboring cells as supported by 5G NR via RRC signaling [0059-0061]. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to support the measurement gap to acquire a timing to synchronize with the neighboring cells. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TARIMALA et al PG PUB 2020/0367097 in view of HUANG et al PG PUB 2024/0223323 as applied to Claim 18 above and further in view of SU et al PG PUB 2021/0007216.
Re Claim 19, TARIMARLA et al in view of Huang et al fails to teach "calculating the likelihood that the UE did not receive the first DCI in association with...a CRC parameter...". However, SU et al teaches the DCI includes a CRC sequence (parameter) to verified the received DCI based on calculating the CRC sequence [0111]. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have calculating the CRC sequence to determine whether the DCI was correctly received for reliability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TARIMALA et al PG PUB 2020/0367097 in view of XU et al PG PUB 2020/0068652.
Re Claims 21 and 23, TARIMARLA et al fails to teach "the communication being a voice communication" or a "RLC-UM configuration". However, XU et al teaches when a service has a high real-time requirement such as voice, it is carried in an RLC UM to maintain the QoS requirement [0024 0026]. As TARIMARLA et al teaches selectively discarding the HARQ state, in view of XU et al, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have carried the voice communication in the RLC-UM entity (configuration) to maintain the QoS requirement for real-time application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Claims 6, 12, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TARIMALA et al PG PUB 2020/0367097 in view of ZHOU et al PG PUB 2022/0361108.
Re Claims 6, 12, 13 and 16, TARIMALA et al in figure 5, the UE starting the HARQ retransmission timer 518 [0081]. TARIMALA et al fails to teach “…in association with receiving a third DCI, the third DCI being received prior to the second DCI.”. However, ZHOU et al teaches when a DCI format schedules a initial transmission, the UE starts a HARQ retransmission timer [0218]. By combining the teaching, the UE 504 can receive a DCI (a third DCI) from the BS to schedule the initial transmission to start the HARQ retransmission timer wherein the DCI scheduling the initial transmission would have been received prior to receiving the second DCI 525 indicating an uplink grant with NDI bit toggled [TARIMALA et al 0086 0087]. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have started the HARQ retransmission timer based on the DCI of ZHOU et al to initiate the HARQ process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re Claim 8, Prior art fails to teach a duration of the HARQ retention timer is in association with a duration of the DRX cycle multiplied by a variable as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 6, 12, 13, and 16 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re Claims 1-5, 9, 14, 23-30, Applicant argues that TAMIMARLA et al fails to teach “wherein a duration of the HARQ start retention timer is in association with a traffic type of another communication” as recited in amended claim 1.
However, Examiner disagrees.
TARIMARLA et al teaches in figure 5, the BS configures a duration for the HARQ retransmission timer 511; transmits the HARQ retransmission timer 512 to the UE 504; the UE 504 identify first uplink data 513 which can be either uplink data or uplink control information (a traffic type) [0078]; the UE 504 transmits the first uplink data 514 (another communication) to base station 502; the HARQ retransmission timer is associated with the first uplink data (the traffic type) [0079].
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 ANDREW LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3130. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM ET.
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, KASSIM KHALAD can be reached at 5712703770. 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.
/ANDREW LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475