DETAILED ACTION
This communication is response to the application filed 09/28/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/28/2023 and 10/18/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 20, the claim elements “one subset” as used in the claim is unclear and vague. It is unclear what this “one subset” defines in the claim. Thus, the claim language is unclear and renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 3, the element “feedback time offset set” recited in line 4 is unclear and vague. Claim 1 use the term “equivalent feedback time offset”, which is different from “feedback time offset set” recited in claim 3. It is unclear what is the difference/relation between “feedback time offset set” and “equivalent feedback time offset”, thus rendering the claim unclear and indefinite. Claim also use the terms “rows” and “schedulable rows”. The terms “rows” and “schedulable rows” in claim 3 is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. The term terms “rows” and “schedulable rows” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The terms should be rephrased to overcome this rejection. The claim also recite “initial candidate transmission occasions”. It is not clear what is transmitted during this occasion, thus renders the claim unclear and indefinite.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "any row" and “any schedulable row” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 2 and 4-18, they are rejected since they depend(s) on rejected base claim and fails to correct the deficiency in the base claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 12 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “UCI enhancements for URLLC”, 3GPP Draft; R1-1900044, by HUAWEI et al. (hereafter Huawei), see IDS dated 10/18/2024 in view of US 2022/0271873 to Gao et al. (hereafter Gao).
Regarding claim 1, Huawei discloses a Hybrid Automatic Repeat reQuest ACKnowledgement (HARQ-ACK) codebook construction method (see Huawei, Fig 4a and Fig 4b), comprising:
obtaining, by a terminal, a time domain feedback record set, wherein each time domain feedback record in the time domain feedback record set comprises a time domain resource assignment record and an equivalent feedback time offset corresponding to the time domain resource assignment record (see Huawei, Section 2.1.3: discloses semistatic and dynamic scheduling using SLIV), and the equivalent feedback time offset (see Huawei, Section 2.1.3: discloses K1 values for DL transmissions scheduled by semi-static or dynamic scheduling of feedback AN1/AN2 for different types of PDSCH) is a feedback time offset value actually applied when a HARQ-ACK for the time domain resource assignment record corresponding to the equivalent feedback time offset is fed back in an uplink slot (see Huawei, Fig 4, slot 8);
dividing, by the terminal, the time domain feedback record set (see Huawei, Fig 4a; page 4, first paragraph: K1 set = {1, … 8}/ AN1 and AN2) into a plurality of subsets based on equivalent feedback time offsets (see Huawei, K1 = {4, .. 8}/AN1 for Fig 4b and K1 = {1, … 3}/AN2 for Fig 4B; page 3, section 2.1.3: the configured K1 set or SLIV set could be divided into two sub-sets and ACK/NACKs are pointed to one UL slot would be grouped according to the corresponding K1 information or SLIV information), wherein each equivalent feedback time offset corresponds to one subset (see Huawei, Fig 4a and Fig 4b; first subset is for the first group of DL slots, the same for the second one ….); and
Huawei implicitly discloses constructing, by the terminal, a HARQ-ACK codebook based on the plurality of subsets obtained through division, to perform feedback in the uplink slot (see Huawei, section 2.1.3: the configured K1 set or SLIV set could be divided into two sub-sets and ACK/NACKs are pointed to one UL slot……).
However, Gao discloses constructing, by the terminal, a HARQ-ACK codebook based on the plurality of subsets obtained through division (see Gao, ¶ 0105: constructing a dynamic HARQ codebook with a first set of HARQ ACK bits being associated with dynamically scheduled Physical Downlink Shared Channels (PDSCHs) and a second set of HARQ ACK bits being associated with Semi-Persistent Scheduling (SPS) PDSCHs; and ordering the second set of HARQ ACK bits according to the SPS PDSCH index; ¶ 0119; ¶ 0162), to perform feedback in the uplink slot (see Gao, ¶ 0111: constructing a semi-static HARQ codebook with JxM rows and N columns for each serving cell for HARQ A/N reporting in a uplink slot; ¶ 0112: sending the semi-static HARQ codebook in the uplink slot by ordering the HARQ codebook entries in certain order).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the constructing codebook to perform feedback in the uplink slot as taught by Gao and incorporate it into the system of Huawei to achieve efficient resource utilization (see Gao, ¶ 0123).
Regarding claim 2, Huawei in view of Gao discloses the HARQ-ACK codebook construction method according to claim 1, wherein the obtaining, by a terminal, a time domain feedback record set comprises: collecting, by the terminal, time domain feedback records corresponding to all initial candidate transmission occasions that are possibly scheduled, to obtain the time domain feedback record set (see Huawei, section page 4, 2.1.3: only one ACK/NACK bit would be generated for overlapping PDSCH occasions in semi-static codebook, especially when overlapping occasions with the same start symbol).
Regarding claim 12, Huawei in view of Gao discloses the HARQ-ACK codebook construction method according to claim 1, wherein the constructing, by the terminal, a HARQ-ACK codebook based on the plurality of subsets obtained through division comprises: determining, by the terminal, a candidate transmission occasion set corresponding to a target serving cell based on the plurality of subsets obtained through division; and reserving and setting, by the terminal, a HARQ-ACK bit for each candidate transmission occasion in the candidate transmission occasion set, to obtain the HARQ-ACK codebook (see Huawei, section page 4, 2.1.3: UE is expected to feed back both the ACK/NACK for the eMBB PDSCH (e.g., AN 1) and the ACK/NACK for URLLC PDSCH (e.g., AN2). Only one ACK/NACK bit would be generated for overlapping PDSCH occasions in semi-static codebook, especially when overlapping occasions with the same start symbol. If we divide the configured SLIVs into two groups whose ACK/NACKs would be feedback separately, then the above problem could be perfectly solved).
Regarding claim 18, Huawei in view of Gao discloses the HARQ-ACK codebook construction method according to claim 1, further comprising: sending, by the terminal, the HARQ-ACK codebook in the uplink slot (see Huawei, page 3, section 2.1.2: we must first determine the feedback slot of ACK/NACKs to generate the codebook, and then determine the PUCCH resource from one PUCCH resource set determined by payload size of HARQ-ACK codebook).
Gao also discloses sending, by the terminal, the HARQ-ACK codebook in the uplink slot (see Gao, ¶ 0112: sending the semi-static HARQ codebook in the uplink slot by ordering the HARQ codebook entries in certain order; ¶ 0121: sending the HARQ codebook in the uplink slot; ¶ 0195: The UE sends the HARQ codebook to a network node in an uplink slot).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teaching of sending, by the terminal, the HARQ-ACK codebook in the uplink slot as taught by Gao and incorporate it into the system of Huawei to achieve efficient resource utilization (see Gao, ¶ 0123).
Regarding claim 19, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1. Although phrased as non-transitory computer-readable medium claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-11 and 13-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0015091 to Li et al. discloses terminal may distinguish different HARQ-ACK codebooks, for example, two HARQ-ACK codebooks, by using a physical layer, where a HARQ-ACK codebook-1 is associated with X resources (the subset 1) in a PUCCH-ResourceSet, and a HARQ-ACK codebook-2 is associated with Y resources (the subset 2) in the PUCCH-ResourceSet.
US 2022/03938337 to YANG et al. discloses determining at least one PSFCH reception occasion based on the first time domain resource offset value set and a feedback period of the PSFCH comprises: determining, at least one time domain resource as a time domain resource in the at least one PSFCH reception occasion, wherein the at least one time domain resource is in a time domain resource set corresponding to the first time domain resource offset value set, and satisfies the feedback period of the PSFCH, and is for sidelink transmission.
US 2023/0291504 to CHENG et al. discloses a for constructing a Hybrid-Automatic-Repeat-Request Acknowledge (HARQ-ACK) codebook, includes receiving a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message from a Network (NW), the RRC message including an indication to the UE whether to disable a HARQ feedback for a HARQ process; if the indication of the RRC message indicates to the UE to disable the HARQ feedback for the HARQ process, not generating a HARQ-ACK bit corresponding to a first Transport Block (TB) and generating at least one HARQ-ACK bit corresponding to at least one second TB; and if a Downlink Control Information (DCI) format from the NW indicates to the UE to feedback reception of the first TB and the at least one second TB in a same slot, multiplexing the at least one HARQ-ACK bit to construct the HARQ-ACK codebook for the first TB and the at least one second TB.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHEED GIDADO whose telephone number is (571)270-7645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 571-272-3139. 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.
/RASHEED GIDADO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464