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
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 11, 13-14, 20 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Khoshnevisan (US 2021/0321438 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Khoshnevisan teaches the below limitation(s):
receive a first downlink control information (DCI) message that schedules a first downlink shared channel message and requests that the network entity provide first feedback with respect to the first downlink shared channel message (Khoshnevisan Fig 11 block 1105 receiving one or more DCI messages that schedule one or more groups of downlink transmissions, wherein a feedback message for the one or more downlink transmissions is to be transmitted during a same time period; [0005] UE may monitor for DCI during one or more monitoring occasions, where DCI may indicate one or more scheduled downlink transmission (e.g. via PDSCH i.e. downlink shared channel));
determine a codebook based on reception of the first downlink shared channel message, wherein the codebook is defined to provide feedback associated with a single DCI message ([0007] group index field [of DCI] may provide the UE with a group index value of a first group that is used for generating a codebook associated with the first group); and
transmit a feedback indication that is associated with the first feedback ([0005] UE may report feedback (e.g. one or more information bits in a first codebook) for downlink transmission; [0007] after generating codebook, UE may transmit the feedback message that includes at least the codebook associated with DL transmission for the first group).
Regarding Claim 11, Khoshnevisan teaches the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Khoshnevisan further teaches the below limitation(s):
wherein the network entity is configured to use the codebook as a fallback codebook when multiple different codebooks are configured and provision of respective feedback for each of the multiple different codebooks are scheduled to overlap (Khoshnevisan [0106] in the case that UE can't generate codebook, they can use fallback DCI such as DCI format 1_0 … UE may receive a fallback DCI which may not include group index field for PDSCH scheduled by the DCI).
Regarding Claim 13, Khoshnevisan teaches the limitation(s) of Claim 11.
Khoshnevisan further teaches the below limitation(s):
transmission of the feedback indication is in accordance with a second codebook different from the codebook (Khoshnevisan [0042] UE may receiver another DCI that includes an indicator and UE may utilize the indicator in the other received DCI when determining the HARQ codebook), and
the feedback indication comprises the first feedback multiplexed with second feedback associated with the second codebook ([0042] UE may multiplex (i.e. bundle) feedback for both groups when sending a feedback message).
Regarding Claim 14, Khoshnevisan teaches the below limitation(s):
transmit a first downlink control information (DCI) message that schedules a first downlink shared channel message and requests that a second network entity provide first feedback with respect to the first downlink shared channel message (Khoshnevisan Fig 11 block 1105 receiving one or more DCI messages that schedule one or more groups of downlink transmissions, wherein a feedback message for the one or more downlink transmissions is to be transmitted during a same time period; [0005] UE may monitor for DCI during one or more monitoring occasions, where DCI may indicate one or more scheduled downlink transmission (e.g. via PDSCH i.e. downlink shared channel)); and
receive, via a codebook and based on transmission of the first DCI message, a feedback indication that is associated with the first feedback ([0007] group index field [of DCI] may provide the UE with a group index value of a first group that is used for generating a codebook associated with the first group),
wherein the codebook is defined to provide feedback associated with a single DCI message ([0005] UE may report feedback (e.g. one or more information bits in a first codebook) for downlink transmission; [0007] after generating codebook, UE may transmit the feedback message that includes at least the codebook associated with DL transmission for the first group).
Regarding Claim 20, Khoshnevisan teaches the below limitation(s):
receiving a first downlink control information (DCI) message that schedules a first downlink shared channel message and requests that the network entity provide first feedback with respect to the first downlink shared channel message (Khoshnevisan Fig 11 block 1105 receiving one or more DCI messages that schedule one or more groups of downlink transmissions, wherein a feedback message for the one or more downlink transmissions is to be transmitted during a same time period; [0005] UE may monitor for DCI during one or more monitoring occasions, where DCI may indicate one or more scheduled downlink transmission (e.g. via PDSCH i.e. downlink shared channel));
determining a codebook based on reception of the first downlink shared channel message, wherein the codebook is defined to provide feedback associated with a single DCI message ([0007] group index field [of DCI] may provide the UE with a group index value of a first group that is used for generating a codebook associated with the first group); and
transmitting a feedback indication that is associated with the first feedback ([0005] UE may report feedback (e.g. one or more information bits in a first codebook) for downlink transmission; [0007] after generating codebook, UE may transmit the feedback message that includes at least the codebook associated with DL transmission for the first group).
Regarding Claim 27, Khoshnevisan teaches the below limitation(s):
transmitting a first downlink control information (DCI) message that schedules a first downlink shared channel message and requests that a second network entity provide first feedback with respect to the first downlink shared channel message (Khoshnevisan Fig 11 block 1105 receiving one or more DCI messages that schedule one or more groups of downlink transmissions, wherein a feedback message for the one or more downlink transmissions is to be transmitted during a same time period; [0005] UE may monitor for DCI during one or more monitoring occasions, where DCI may indicate one or more scheduled downlink transmission (e.g. via PDSCH i.e. downlink shared channel)); and
receiving, via a codebook and based on transmission of the first DCI message, a feedback indication that is associated with the first feedback ([0007] group index field [of DCI] may provide the UE with a group index value of a first group that is used for generating a codebook associated with the first group),
wherein the codebook is defined to provide feedback associated with a single DCI message ([0005] UE may report feedback (e.g. one or more information bits in a first codebook) for downlink transmission; [0007] after generating codebook, UE may transmit the feedback message that includes at least the codebook associated with DL transmission for the first group).
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) 4-5, 17, 23-24 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan (US 2021/0321438 A1) in view of Zhu (US 2022/0278774 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Khoshnevisan discloses the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Khoshnevisan does not disclose the below limitation(s): include the first feedback in the codebook on a per-code block group (CBG) basis when CBG feedback is enabled,
wherein a payload size of the codebook is based on a quantity of CBGs associated with the first downlink shared channel message.
In the same field of endeavor of providing HARQ-ACK feedback, Zhu does disclose the below limitation(s): include the first feedback in the codebook on a per-code block group (CBG) basis when CBG feedback is enabled (Zhu [0048] each feedback bit functions to indicate feedback for a corresponding CBG separately),
wherein a payload size of the codebook is based on a quantity of CBGs associated with the first downlink shared channel message ([0048] the number of HARQ-ACK feedback bits may be determined based on the number of configured CBGs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned network entity/method for wireless communication to include providing feedback on a per CBG basis as taught by Zhu. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to provide feedback for each CBG so that partial retransmission is supported. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Khoshnevisan and Zhu to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 5, Khoshnevisan and Zhu disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 4.
Khoshnevisan does not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the payload size of the codebook is equal to the quantity of CBGs associated with the first downlink shared channel message.
In the same field of endeavor of providing HARQ-ACK feedback, Zhu does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the payload size of the codebook is equal to the quantity of CBGs associated with the first downlink shared channel message (Zhu [0048] each feedback bit functions to indicate feedback for a corresponding CBG separately, which examiner is interpreting as a number of bits (i.e. payload size) is equivalent to number of CBGs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned network entity/method for wireless communication to include a size of feedback equal to number of bits, for example by assigning 1 feedback bit per CBG, as taught by Zhu. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to scale the size of the feedback with the number of CBGs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Khoshnevisan and Zhu to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 17, Khoshnevisan discloses the limitation(s) of Claim 14.
Khoshnevisan does not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein a payload size of the feedback indication is equal to a quantity of code block groups (CBGs) included in the first downlink shared channel message.
In the same field of endeavor of providing HARQ-ACK feedback, Zhu does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein a payload size of the feedback indication is equal to a quantity of code block groups (CBGs) included in the first downlink shared channel message (Zhu [0048] the number of HARQ-ACK feedback bits may be determined based on the number of configured CBGs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned network entity/method for wireless communication to include providing feedback based on a number of CBGs as taught by Zhu. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to scale the size of feedback with the number of CBGs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Khoshnevisan and Zhu to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 23, Khoshnevisan discloses the limitation(s) of Claim 20.
Khoshnevisan does not disclose the below limitation(s): including the first feedback in the codebook on a per-code block group (CBG) basis when CBG feedback is enabled,
wherein a payload size of the codebook is based on a quantity of CBGs associated with the first downlink shared channel message.
In the same field of endeavor of providing HARQ-ACK feedback, Zhu does disclose the below limitation(s): including the first feedback in the codebook on a per-code block group (CBG) basis when CBG feedback is enabled (Zhu [0048] each feedback bit functions to indicate feedback for a corresponding CBG separately),
wherein a payload size of the codebook is based on a quantity of CBGs associated with the first downlink shared channel message ([0048] the number of HARQ-ACK feedback bits may be determined based on the number of configured CBGs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned network entity/method for wireless communication to include providing feedback on a per CBG basis as taught by Zhu. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to provide feedback for each CBG so that partial retransmission is supported. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Khoshnevisan and Zhu to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 24, Khoshnevisan and Zhu disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 23.
Khoshnevisan does not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the payload size of the codebook is equal to the quantity of CBGs associated with the first downlink shared channel message.
In the same field of endeavor of providing HARQ-ACK feedback, Zhu does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the payload size of the codebook is equal to the quantity of CBGs associated with the first downlink shared channel message (Zhu [0048] each feedback bit functions to indicate feedback for a corresponding CBG separately, which examiner is interpreting as a number of bits (i.e. payload size) is equivalent to number of CBGs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned network entity/method for wireless communication to include a size of feedback equal to number of bits, for example by assigning 1 feedback bit per CBG, as taught by Zhu. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to scale the size of the feedback with the number of CBGs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Khoshnevisan and Zhu to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 30, Khoshnevisan and Zhu disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 27.
Khoshnevisan does not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein a payload size of the feedback indication is equal to a quantity of code block groups (CBGs) included in the first downlink shared channel message, a quantity of codewords included in the first downlink shared channel message, or both.
In the same field of endeavor of providing HARQ-ACK feedback, Zhu does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein a payload size of the feedback indication is equal to a quantity of code block groups (CBGs) included in the first downlink shared channel message, a quantity of codewords included in the first downlink shared channel message, or both (Zhu [0048] the number of HARQ-ACK feedback bits may be determined based on the number of configured CBGs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned network entity/method for wireless communication to include a size of feedback equal to number of bits, for example by assigning 1 feedback bit per CBG, as taught by Zhu. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to scale the size of the feedback with the number of CBGs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Khoshnevisan and Zhu to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 6-7, 18 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan in view of Lee (US 2012/0099491 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Khoshnevisan discloses the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Khoshnevisan does not disclose the below limitation(s): include the first feedback in the codebook on a per-codeword basis,
wherein a payload size of the codebook is based on a quantity of codewords associated with the first downlink shared channel message.
In the same field of endeavor of providing HARQ-ACK feedback, Lee does disclose the below limitation(s): include the first feedback in the codebook on a per-codeword basis (Lee [0305] UE may be designed to generate individual ACK/NACK information (i.e. feedback) for each codeword (CW) that is received),
wherein a payload size of the codebook is based on a quantity of codewords associated with the first downlink shared channel message ([0305] teaches bundling ACK/NACK information based at least in part on the sum of maximum numbers of CWs, which examiner interprets as payload size based in part on the quantity of codewords).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned network entity/method for wireless communication to include providing feedback for each codeword as taught by Lee. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to provide feedback for each codeword such that partial retransmission is supported. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Khoshnevisan and Lee to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 7, Khoshnevisan and Lee disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 6.
Khoshnevisan does not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the payload size of the codebook is equal to the quantity of codewords associated with the first downlink shared channel message.
In the same field of endeavor of providing HARQ-ACK feedback, Lee does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the payload size of the codebook is equal to the quantity of codewords associated with the first downlink shared channel message (Lee [0305] wherein bundling of packet is based on maximum numbers of CWs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned network entity/method for wireless communication to include a feedback size based on the quantity of codewords as taught by Lee. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to enable the scaling of feedback based on a number of associated codewords. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Khoshnevisan and Lee to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 18, Khoshnevisan discloses the limitation(s) of Claim 14.
Khoshnevisan does not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein a payload size of the feedback indication is equal to a quantity of codewords included in the first downlink shared channel message.
In the same field of endeavor of providing HARQ-ACK feedback, Lee does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein a payload size of the feedback indication is equal to a quantity of codewords included in the first downlink shared channel message (Lee [0305] teaches bundling ACK/NACK information based at least in part on the sum of maximum numbers of CWs, which examiner interprets as payload size based in part on the quantity of codewords).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned network entity/method for wireless communication to include providing feedback for each codeword as taught by Lee. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to provide feedback for each codeword such that partial retransmission is supported. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Khoshnevisan and Lee to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 25, Khoshnevisan discloses the limitation(s) of Claim 20.
Khoshnevisan does not disclose the below limitation(s): including the first feedback in the codebook on a per-codeword basis,
wherein a payload size of the codebook is based on a quantity of codewords associated with the first downlink shared channel message.
In the same field of endeavor of providing HARQ-ACK feedback, Lee does disclose the below limitation(s): including the first feedback in the codebook on a per-codeword basis (Lee [0305] UE may be designed to generate individual ACK/NACK information (i.e. feedback) for each codeword (CW) that is received),
wherein a payload size of the codebook is based on a quantity of codewords associated with the first downlink shared channel message [0305] teaches bundling ACK/NACK information based at least in part on the sum of maximum numbers of CWs, which examiner interprets as payload size based in part on the quantity of codewords ([0305] teaches bundling ACK/NACK information based at least in part on the sum of maximum numbers of CWs, which examiner interprets as payload size based in part on the quantity of codewords).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned network entity/method for wireless communication to include providing feedback for each codeword as taught by Lee. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to provide feedback for each codeword such that partial retransmission is supported. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Khoshnevisan and Lee to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 26, Khoshnevisan and Lee disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 25.
Khoshnevisan does not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the payload size of the codebook is equal to the quantity of codewords associated with the first downlink shared channel message.
In the same field of endeavor of providing HARQ-ACK feedback, Lee does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the payload size of the codebook is equal to the quantity of codewords associated with the first downlink shared channel message (Lee [0305] wherein bundling of packet is based on maximum numbers of CWs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned network entity/method for wireless communication to include a feedback size based on the quantity of codewords as taught by Lee. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to enable the scaling of feedback based on a number of associated codewords. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Khoshnevisan and Lee to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan in view of Su (US 2024/0414698 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Khoshnevisan discloses the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Khoshnevisan does not disclose the below limitation(s): puncture a scheduled uplink shared channel message with transmission of the feedback indication based on an overlap between the scheduled uplink shared channel message and provision of the first feedback.
In the same field of endeavor of providing HARQ-ACK feedback, Su does disclose the below limitation(s): puncture a scheduled uplink shared channel message with transmission of the feedback indication based on an overlap between the scheduled uplink shared channel message and provision of the first feedback (Su [0018] in response to HARQ-ACK overlaps with a slot of the TBoMS transmission (i.e. UL shared channel message): [0022] puncturing the HARQ-ACK into the TBoMS transmission in the overlapping slot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned network entity/method for wireless communication to include puncturing HARQ-ACK when an overlap is detected as taught by Su. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to transmit HARQ-ACK regardless of a detected overlap to reduce latency of retransmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Khoshnevisan and Su to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 9, Khoshnevisan and Su disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 8.
Khoshnevisan does not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the scheduled uplink shared channel message is punctured by transmission of the feedback indication when a payload size of the codebook satisfies a threshold payload size.
In the same field of endeavor of providing HARQ-ACK feedback, Su does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the scheduled uplink shared channel message is punctured by transmission of the feedback indication when a payload size of the codebook satisfies a threshold payload size (Su [0022] puncturing the HARQ-ACK is in response to the number of HARQ-ACK bits exceeding a maximum number of HARQ ACK to be punctured into a PUSCH in one slot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned network entity/method for wireless communication to include puncturing the HARQ-ACK based at least in part on a payload size as taught by Su. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to refrain from transmitting HARQ-ACK when it exceeds a threshold amount to prevent errors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Khoshnevisan and Su to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 19, Khoshnevisan discloses the limitation(s) of Claim 14.
Khoshnevisan does not disclose the below limitation(s): receive a scheduled uplink shared channel message that is punctured with reception of the feedback indication based on an overlap between the scheduled uplink shared channel message and provision of the first feedback.
In the same field of endeavor of providing HARQ-ACK feedback, Su does disclose the below limitation(s): receive a scheduled uplink shared channel message that is punctured with reception of the feedback indication based on an overlap between the scheduled uplink shared channel message and provision of the first feedback (Su [0018] in response to HARQ-ACK overlaps with a slot of the TBoMS transmission (i.e. UL shared channel message): [0022] puncturing the HARQ-ACK into the TBoMS transmission in the overlapping slot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned network entity/method for wireless communication to include puncturing HARQ-ACK when an overlap is detected as taught by Su. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to transmit HARQ-ACK regardless of a detected overlap to reduce latency of retransmission. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Khoshnevisan and Su to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 10, 12, 15-16, 21-22, and 28-29 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: a thorough and complete search has been conducted and no prior art has been found that solely, or in any reasonable combination, reads on each element of the indicated claim(s). In particular, the language of Claim 2, namely “wherein the overlap is associated with an error condition based on the codebook being defined to provide feedback for a single DCI message”, overcomes cited prior art by performing a step not contemplated by the prior art. Claims 15, 21 and 28 recite at least the same novel limitation and are objected to allow for at least the same reason(s).
In particular, the language of Claim 3, namely “populate the codebook with bundled feedback that is based on the first feedback associated with the first DCI message and on the second feedback associated with the second DCI message,”, overcomes cited prior art by performing a step not contemplated by the prior art. Claims 16, 22 and 29 recite at least the same novel limitation and are objected to allow for at least the same reason(s).
In particular, the language of Claim 10, namely “rate match a scheduled uplink shared channel message with transmission of the feedback indication based on an overlap between the scheduled uplink shared channel message”, overcomes cited prior art by performing a step not contemplated by the prior art.
In particular, the language of Claim 12, namely “wherein transmission of the feedback indication is in accordance with the codebook and is based on the fallback codebook being prioritized over non-fallback codebooks.”, overcomes cited prior art by performing a step not contemplated by the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yang (2020/0092068 A1) at Fig. 6 teaches receiving a DCI, determining a HARQ-ACK codebook, and transmitting feedback based on the determined codebook. This substantially reads on at least the independent claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN D MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8599. The examiner can normally be reached M-TR 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, Charles C Jiang can be reached at (571) 270-7191. 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.
/SHAWN D MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412