DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/548306 filed on 09/05/2023 is presented for examination by the examiner.
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 . 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 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.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant's claim for priority based on application filed on CHINA 202110262602.4 (03/10/2021). Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, 16, 17 are objected to because of the following informality:
In this case, claims 2, 3, 16, 17 recites limitation for performing certain step(s) only if a specific condition is satisfied (Conditional Statement). Such limitations are considered as optional limitations since they are not performed until specific conditions are met. Applicant should change the word “in a case that” to “responsive to determining that…..” in order to alter an optional limitation to a required limitation. For the purpose of examination, claimed limitations will be considered as optional limitations since they are not performed until specific conditions are met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §101 which forms the basis for all patent-ineligible rejections set forth in this Office action:
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.
The factual inquires set forth in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 134 (2014), that are applied for establishing a background for determining patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining whether the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
2A. Determining whether the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions).
2B. Determining whether the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. The rationale for this determination is explained below. Claim 1 recites: “A method for generating a semi-static hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgment (HARQ-ACK) codebook, performed by a terminal and comprising: determining, based on at least one of a K1 set corresponding to a first physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) and a K1 set corresponding to a second PDSCH, a K1 set associated with an active uplink bandwidth part (UL BWP); determining, for each K1,k value in the K1 set associated with the active UL BWP, based on at least one of a time domain resource assignment (TDRA) table corresponding to the first PDSCH and a TDRA table corresponding to the second PDSCH, a candidate PDSCH reception occasion in a slot corresponding to the K1,k value, wherein k = 0, ..., M–1, and M is a quantity of elements in the K1 set associated with the active UL BWP; and determining the semi-static HARQ-ACK codebook based on the candidate PDSCH reception occasion”.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claims 1-7 are directed to a statutory category subject matter, reciting a method.
.
Step 2A:Judicial Exception
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A method for generating a semi-static hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgment (HARQ-ACK) codebook, performed by a terminal and comprising: determining, based on at least one of a K1 set corresponding to a first physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) and a K1 set corresponding to a second PDSCH, a K1 set associated with an active uplink bandwidth part (UL BWP); determining, for each K1,k value in the K1 set associated with the active UL BWP, based on at least one of a time domain resource assignment (TDRA) table corresponding to the first PDSCH and a TDRA table corresponding to the second PDSCH, a candidate PDSCH reception occasion in a slot corresponding to the K1,k value, wherein k = 0, ..., M–1, and M is a quantity of elements in the K1 set associated with the active UL BWP; and determining the semi-static HARQ-ACK codebook based on the candidate PDSCH reception occasion”.
The limitation as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the “determining” steps in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally “determining, based on at least one of a K1 set corresponding to a first physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) and a K1 set corresponding to a second PDSCH, a K1 set associated with an active uplink bandwidth part (UL BWP); determining, for each K1,k value in the K1 set associated with the active UL BWP, based on at least one of a time domain resource assignment (TDRA) table corresponding to the first PDSCH and a TDRA table corresponding to the second PDSCH, a candidate PDSCH reception occasion in a slot corresponding to the K1,k value, wherein k = 0, ..., M–1, and M is a quantity of elements in the K1 set associated with the active UL BWP; and determining the semi-static HARQ-ACK codebook based on the candidate PDSCH reception occasion”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites using hardware (i.e. the “terminal”) to perform the “claimed limitations”. The hardware in the step is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing the claimed function, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Additional Steps/Elements Significantly More than the Judicial Exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of using the “hardware” (i.e. the terminal) to perform the claimed limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 2-7 merely contain additional determining step(s) that can be performed mentally or limitation that are used to define the type of PDSCH. Claims 2-7 contain no further/additional steps or limitations, if being incorporated to claim 1, will overcome the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §101 which forms the basis for all patent-ineligible rejections set forth in this Office action:
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.
The factual inquires set forth in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 134 (2014), that are applied for establishing a background for determining patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining whether the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
2A. Determining whether the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions).
2B. Determining whether the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. The rationale for this determination is explained below. Claim 8 recites: “A terminal, comprising a processor, a memory, and an instruction stored in the memory and capable of running on the processor, wherein the instruction, when executed by the processor, implements: determining, based on at least one of a K1 set corresponding to a first physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) and a K1 set corresponding to a second PDSCH, a K1 set associated with an active uplink bandwidth part (UL BWP); determining, for each K1,k value in the K1 set associated with the active UL BWP, based on at least one of a time domain resource assignment (TDRA) table corresponding to the first PDSCH and a TDRA table corresponding to the second PDSCH, a candidate PDSCH reception occasion in a slot corresponding to the K1,k value, wherein k = 0, ..., M–1, and M is a quantity of elements in the K1 set associated with the active UL BWP; and determining the semi-static HARQ-ACK codebook based on the candidate PDSCH reception occasion”.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claims 8-14 are directed to a statutory category subject matter, reciting an apparatus.
.
Step 2A: Judicial Exception
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 8 recites “A terminal, comprising a processor, a memory, and an instruction stored in the memory and capable of running on the processor, wherein the instruction, when executed by the processor, implements: determining, based on at least one of a K1 set corresponding to a first physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) and a K1 set corresponding to a second PDSCH, a K1 set associated with an active uplink bandwidth part (UL BWP); determining, for each K1,k value in the K1 set associated with the active UL BWP, based on at least one of a time domain resource assignment (TDRA) table corresponding to the first PDSCH and a TDRA table corresponding to the second PDSCH, a candidate PDSCH reception occasion in a slot corresponding to the K1,k value, wherein k = 0, ..., M–1, and M is a quantity of elements in the K1 set associated with the active UL BWP; and determining the semi-static HARQ-ACK codebook based on the candidate PDSCH reception occasion”.
The limitation as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the “determining” steps in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally “determining, based on at least one of a K1 set corresponding to a first physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) and a K1 set corresponding to a second PDSCH, a K1 set associated with an active uplink bandwidth part (UL BWP); determining, for each K1,k value in the K1 set associated with the active UL BWP, based on at least one of a time domain resource assignment (TDRA) table corresponding to the first PDSCH and a TDRA table corresponding to the second PDSCH, a candidate PDSCH reception occasion in a slot corresponding to the K1,k value, wherein k = 0, ..., M–1, and M is a quantity of elements in the K1 set associated with the active UL BWP; and determining the semi-static HARQ-ACK codebook based on the candidate PDSCH reception occasion”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites using the “hardware” (i.e. a processor, a memory) to perform the “claimed limitations”. The hardware in the step is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing the claimed function, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Additional Steps/Elements Significantly More than the Judicial Exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of using the “hardware” (i.e. a processor, a memory) to perform the claimed limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 9-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 9-14 merely contain additional determining step(s) that can be performed mentally or limitation that are used to define the type of PDSCH. Claims 9-14 contain no further/additional steps or limitations, if being incorporated to claim 8, will overcome the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §101 which forms the basis for all patent-ineligible rejections set forth in this Office action:
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.
The factual inquires set forth in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 134 (2014), that are applied for establishing a background for determining patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining whether the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
2A. Determining whether the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions).
2B. Determining whether the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. The rationale for this determination is explained below. Claim 15 recites: “A non-transitory readable storage medium, wherein the readable storage medium stores instructions, and the instructions, when executed by a processor, implement: determining, based on at least one of a K1 set corresponding to a first physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) and a K1 set corresponding to a second PDSCH, a K1 set associated with an active uplink bandwidth part (UL BWP); determining, for each K1,k value in the K1 set associated with the active UL BWP, based on at least one of a time domain resource assignment (TDRA) table corresponding to the first PDSCH and a TDRA table corresponding to the second PDSCH, a candidate PDSCH reception occasion in a slot corresponding to the K1,k value, wherein k = 0, ..., M–1, and M is a quantity of elements in the K1 set associated with the active UL BWP; and determining the semi-static HARQ-ACK codebook based on the candidate PDSCH reception occasion”.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claims 15-20 are directed to a statutory category subject matter, reciting a “non-transitory readable storage medium”.
Step 2A: Judicial Exception
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 15 recites “A non-transitory readable storage medium, wherein the readable storage medium stores instructions, and the instructions, when executed by a processor, implement: determining, based on at least one of a K1 set corresponding to a first physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) and a K1 set corresponding to a second PDSCH, a K1 set associated with an active uplink bandwidth part (UL BWP); determining, for each K1,k value in the K1 set associated with the active UL BWP, based on at least one of a time domain resource assignment (TDRA) table corresponding to the first PDSCH and a TDRA table corresponding to the second PDSCH, a candidate PDSCH reception occasion in a slot corresponding to the K1,k value, wherein k = 0, ..., M–1, and M is a quantity of elements in the K1 set associated with the active UL BWP; and determining the semi-static HARQ-ACK codebook based on the candidate PDSCH reception occasion”.
The limitation as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the “determining” steps in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally “determining, based on at least one of a K1 set corresponding to a first physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) and a K1 set corresponding to a second PDSCH, a K1 set associated with an active uplink bandwidth part (UL BWP); determining, for each K1,k value in the K1 set associated with the active UL BWP, based on at least one of a time domain resource assignment (TDRA) table corresponding to the first PDSCH and a TDRA table corresponding to the second PDSCH, a candidate PDSCH reception occasion in a slot corresponding to the K1,k value, wherein k = 0, ..., M–1, and M is a quantity of elements in the K1 set associated with the active UL BWP; and determining the semi-static HARQ-ACK codebook based on the candidate PDSCH reception occasion”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites using the “hardware” (i.e. the processor) to perform the “claimed limitations”. The hardware in the step is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing the claimed function, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Additional Steps/Elements Significantly More than the Judicial Exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of using the “hardware” (i.e. the processor) to perform the claimed limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 16-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 16 20 merely contain additional determining step(s) that can be performed mentally or limitation that are used to define the type of PDSCH. Claims 16-20 contain no further/additional steps or limitations, if being incorporated to claim 15, will overcome the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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)(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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8-10, 12, 14-17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US Patent Publication # 2023/0006798 A1).
As per claim 1, Lee discloses “A method for generating a semi-static hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgment (HARQ-ACK) codebook, performed by a terminal and comprising:” as [(par. 0242), the UE determines occasion(s) for candidate PDSCH receptions or SPS PDSCH releases based on a row in a table defined by a PDSCH TDRA configuration and determines the type-1 (i.e., semi-static) HARQ-ACK codebook based on the occasion(s).] “determining, based on at least one of a K1 set corresponding to a first physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) and a K1 set corresponding to a second PDSCH, a K1 set associated with an active uplink bandwidth part (UL BWP);” [(par. 0242), the UE determines occasion(s) for candidate PDSCH receptions or SPS PDSCH releases based on a row in a table defined by a PDSCH TDRA configuration and determines the type-1 (i.e., semi-static) HARQ-ACK codebook based on the occasion(s). (par. 0242), For the set of the slot timing values K1, the UE determines the set of M A,c occasions for candidate PDSCH receptions or SPS PDSCH releases. The M A,c occasions are indexed in ascending order of used TDRA table row indexes. (par. 0242), the UE may determine a set of M A,c occasions for candidate PDSCH receptions for which the UE is to transmit corresponding HARQ-ACK information on a PUCCH in a slot nu, based on a) a set of slot timing values K1 associated with the active UL BWP.] “determining, for each K1,k value in the K1 set associated with the active UL BWP, based on at least one of a time domain resource assignment (TDRA) table corresponding to the first PDSCH and a TDRA table corresponding to the second PDSCH, a candidate PDSCH reception occasion in a slot corresponding to the K1,k value,” [(par. 0242), For the set of the slot timing values K1, the UE determines the set of M A,c occasions for candidate PDSCH receptions or SPS PDSCH releases. The M A,c occasions are indexed in ascending order of used TDRA table row indexes. (par. 0242), the UE may determine a set of M A,c occasions for candidate PDSCH receptions for which the UE is to transmit corresponding HARQ-ACK information on a PUCCH in a slot nu, based on a) a set of slot timing values K1 associated with the active UL BWP.] “wherein k = 0, ..., M–1, and M is a quantity of elements in the K1 set associated with the active UL BWP;” [(par. 0242), For the set of the slot timing values K1, the UE determines the set of M A,c occasions for candidate PDSCH receptions or SPS PDSCH releases. The M A,c occasions are indexed in ascending order of used TDRA table row indexes. (par. 0242), the UE may determine a set of M A,c occasions for candidate PDSCH receptions for which the UE is to transmit corresponding HARQ-ACK information on a PUCCH in a slot nu, based on a) a set of slot timing values K.sub.1 associated with the active UL BWP.] “and determining the semi-static HARQ-ACK codebook based on the candidate PDSCH reception occasion” [(par. 0242), the UE determines occasion(s) for candidate PDSCH receptions or SPS PDSCH releases based on a row in a table defined by a PDSCH TDRA configuration and determines the type-1 (i.e., semi-static) HARQ-ACK codebook based on the occasion(s).]
As per claim 2, Lee discloses “The method according to claim 1,” as [see rejection of claim 1.] “wherein the determining, based on at least one of a TDRA table corresponding to the first PDSCH and a TDRA table corresponding to the second PDSCH, a candidate PDSCH reception occasion in a slot corresponding to the K1,k value comprises at least one of the following: in a case that the K1,k value belongs to an intersection set of the K1 set corresponding to the first PDSCH and the K1 set corresponding to the second PDSCH, determining, based on a union set of a row index of the TDRA table corresponding to the first PDSCH and a row index of the TDRA table corresponding to the second PDSCH, the candidate PDSCH reception occasion in the slot corresponding to the K1,k value; or ” [(par. 0242), the UE determines occasion(s) for candidate PDSCH receptions or SPS PDSCH releases based on a row in a table defined by a PDSCH TDRA configuration and determines the type-1 (i.e., semi-static) HARQ-ACK codebook based on the occasion(s). (par. 0242), For the set of the slot timing values K1, the UE determines the set of M A,c occasions for candidate PDSCH receptions or SPS PDSCH releases. The M A,c occasions are indexed in ascending order of used TDRA table row indexes. (par. 0242), the UE may determine a set of M A,c occasions for candidate PDSCH receptions for which the UE is to transmit corresponding HARQ-ACK information on a PUCCH in a slot nu, based on a) a set of slot timing values K1 associated with the active UL BWP.]
As per claim 3, Lee discloses “The method according to claim 2,” as [see rejection of claim 2.] “wherein in a case that the K1,k value does not belong to the intersection set, the determining, based on the row index of the TDRA table corresponding to the first PDSCH or the row index of the TDRA table corresponding to the second PDSCH, the candidate PDSCH reception occasion in the slot corresponding to the K1,k value comprises at least one of the following: in a case that the K1,k value belongs to the K1 set corresponding to the first PDSCH, determining, based on the row index of the TDRA table corresponding to the first PDSCH, the candidate PDSCH reception occasion in the slot corresponding to the K1,k value; or in a case that the K1,k value belongs to the K1 set corresponding to the second PDSCH, determining, based on the row index of the TDRA table corresponding to the second PDSCH, the candidate PDSCH reception occasion in the slot corresponding to the K1,k value” [(par. 0242), the UE determines occasion(s) for candidate PDSCH receptions or SPS PDSCH releases based on a row in a table defined by a PDSCH TDRA configuration and determines the type-1 (i.e., semi-static) HARQ-ACK codebook based on the occasion(s). (par. 0242), For the set of the slot timing values K1, the UE determines the set of M A,c occasions for candidate PDSCH receptions or SPS PDSCH releases. The M A,c occasions are indexed in ascending order of used TDRA table row indexes. (par. 0242), the UE may determine a set of M A,c occasions for candidate PDSCH receptions for which the UE is to transmit corresponding HARQ-ACK information on a PUCCH in a slot nu, based on a) a set of slot timing values K1 associated with the active UL BWP.]
As per claim 5, Lee discloses “The method according to claim 1,” as [see rejection of claim 1.] “wherein the determining, based on at least one of a K1 set corresponding to a first PDSCH and a K1 set corresponding to a second PDSCH, a K1 set associated with an active UL BWP comprises one of the following: using a union set of the K1 set corresponding to the first PDSCH and the K1 set corresponding to the second PDSCH as the K1 set associated with the active UL BWP; using the K1 set corresponding to the first PDSCH as the K1 set associated with the active UL BWP; or using the K1 set corresponding to the second PDSCH as the K1 set associated with the active UL BWP” [(par. 0242), the UE determines occasion(s) for candidate PDSCH receptions or SPS PDSCH releases based on a row in a table defined by a PDSCH TDRA configuration and determines the type-1 (i.e., semi-static) HARQ-ACK codebook based on the occasion(s). (par. 0242), For the set of the slot timing values K1, the UE determines the set of M A,c occasions for candidate PDSCH receptions or SPS PDSCH releases. The M A,c occasions are indexed in ascending order of used TDRA table row indexes. (par. 0242), the UE may determine a set of M A,c occasions for candidate PDSCH receptions for which the UE is to transmit corresponding HARQ-ACK information on a PUCCH in a slot nu, based on a) a set of slot timing values K1 associated with the active UL BWP.]
As per claim 7, Lee discloses “The method according to claim 1,” as [see rejection of claim 1.] “wherein the first PDSCH and the second PDSCH correspond to different TDRA tables and/or K1 sets” [(par. 0242), the UE determines occasion(s) for candidate PDSCH receptions or SPS PDSCH releases based on a row in a table defined by a PDSCH TDRA configuration and determines the type-1 (i.e., semi-static) HARQ-ACK codebook based on the occasion(s). (par. 0242), For the set of the slot timing values K1, the UE determines the set of M A,c occasions for candidate PDSCH receptions or SPS PDSCH releases. The M A,c occasions are indexed in ascending order of used TDRA table row indexes. (par. 0242), the UE may determine a set of M A,c occasions for candidate PDSCH receptions for which the UE is to transmit corresponding HARQ-ACK information on a PUCCH in a slot nu, based on a) a set of slot timing values K1 associated with the active UL BWP.]
As per claims 8-10, 12, 14, as [see rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 7.]
As per claims 15-17, 19, as [see rejections of claims 1-3, 5.]
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 of this title, 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 4, 6, 11, 13, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2023/0006798 A1) in view of Yeo et al. (US 2023/0362932 A1).
As per claim 4, Lee discloses “The method according to claim 1,” as [see rejection of claim 1.]
Lee does not explicitly disclose “wherein the first PDSCH and the second PDSCH correspond to different DCI formats”.
However, Yeo discloses “wherein the first PDSCH and the second PDSCH correspond to different DCI formats” as [(par. 0017), receive, via the transceiver, first control information which includes information related to hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback for multicast data and schedules a group common-physical downlink shared channel (GC-PDSCH) via which multicast data is transmitted and first control information to schedule a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH), via a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH), and receive, via the transceiver, second control information which includes information related to HARQ feedback for unicast data and schedules a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) via which unicast data is transmitted, via the PDCCH.]
Lee et al. (US Patent Publication # 2023/0006798 A1) and Yeo et al. (US 2023/0362932 A1) are analogous art because they are the same field of endeavor of network communication. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Yeo’s teaching into Lee’s teaching. The motivation for making the above modification would be to provide flexibility to the base station for arranging different types of downlink transmission.
As per claim 6, Lee discloses “The method according to claim 1,” as [see rejection of claim 1.]
Lee does not explicitly disclose “wherein the first PDSCH is a unicast PDSCH, and the second PDSCH is a multicast PDSCH”.
However, Yeo discloses “wherein the first PDSCH is a unicast PDSCH, and the second PDSCH is a multicast PDSCH” as [(par. 0017), receive, via the transceiver, first control information which includes information related to hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback for multicast data and schedules a group common-physical downlink shared channel (GC-PDSCH) via which multicast data is transmitted and first control information to schedule a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH), via a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH), and receive, via the transceiver, second control information which includes information related to HARQ feedback for unicast data and schedules a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) via which unicast data is transmitted, via the PDCCH.]
Lee et al. (US Patent Publication # 2023/0006798 A1) and Yeo et al. (US 2023/0362932 A1) are analogous art because they are the same field of endeavor of network communication. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Yeo’s teaching into Lee’s teaching. The motivation for making the above modification would be to provide flexibility to the base station for arranging different types of downlink transmission.
As per claims 11, 13, as [see rejection of claims 4, 6.]
As per claims 18, 20, as [see rejection of claims 4, 6.]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANG HANG YEUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-7319. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rebecca Song can be reached on (571) 270-3667. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MANG HANG YEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2417