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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s submission of amendment with remarks/arguments, dated May 11, 2026. Claims 21, 22, 24, 25, 34, 35, and 40 have been amended; claim 23 has been canceled.
Upon entering the amendment, claims 21, 22, and 24-40 remain pending. This communication is considered fully responsive and sets forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 21, 22, 24, and 26-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 2021/0258999) in view of Kim et al. (US 2022/0329366).
Regarding claim 21, Xu et al. teach the method performed by a base station (paragraph [0049] lines 1-18; Examiner’s Notes: base station, e.g., Macro BS 110a, depicted in FIG. 1 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “a base station” in the instant application), comprising:
transmitting, to a user equipment (UE), configuration information of a scheduling cell for one or more rows of a TDRA cell index table (paragraph [0076] lines 1-22; Examiner’s Notes: UE 120a depicted in FIG. 1 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “a user equipment (UE);”
the time domain resource assignment (TDRA) in the prior art teaches the limitation of “time domain resource allocation (TDRA);”
in fact, transmitting, to UE 120a, configuration for a scheduling cell for the row index of a time domain resource assignment (TDRA) table, as illustrated in FIG. 1 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “transmitting, to a user equipment (UE), configuration information of a scheduling cell for one or more rows of a TDRA cell index table” in the instant application); and
transmitting, to the UE, downlink control information (DCI) to schedule multiple cells (paragraph [0082] lines 1-13; Examiner’s Notes: the single DCI message 705 illustrated in FIG. 7 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “downlink control information (DCI);”
in fact, transmitting, to the UE, the single DCI message corresponds to multiple cells, e.g., Cells 0 and 1, as illustrated in FIG. 7 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “transmitting, to the UE, downlink control information (DCI) to schedule multiple cells” in the instant application),
the DCI comprising a single time domain resource allocation (TDRA) field containing a value with a first mapping to a first row of a TDRA cell index table comprising multiple rows (paragraph [0082] lines 1-13; Examiner’s Notes: the single DCI message 705 illustrated in FIG. 7 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “downlink control information (DCI);”
in fact, the single DCI message including a single TDRA index value within a single TDRA field corresponds to row index 1 of multiple rows, e.g., 1, 2, etc., as illustrated in FIG. 7 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “the DCI comprising a single time domain resource allocation (TDRA) field containing a value with a first mapping to a first row of a TDRA cell index table comprising multiple rows” in the instant application),
each row of the TDRA cell index table comprising multiple indices (paragraph [0082] lines 1-13; Examiner’s Notes: “TDRA index = 0” corresponds to multiple indices, e.g., 1, 2, etc., as illustrated in table 715 in FIG. 7 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “each row of the TDRA cell index table comprising multiple indices” in the instant application).
Xu et al. teach the method without explicitly teaching implementing each index of the multiple indices corresponds to a different cell of the multiple cells.
Kim et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, wherein each index of the multiple indices corresponds to a different cell of the multiple cells (paragraphs [0208] lines 1-8 & [0218] lines 1-8; Examiner’s Notes: the corresponding cell of the multiple serving cells in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a different cell of the multiple cells;”
in fact, each row index of the multiple indices regards to the corresponding cell of the multiple serving cells in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein each index of the multiple indices corresponds to a different cell of the multiple cells” in the instant application) and
has a second mapping to a different TDRA table (paragraphs [0211] lines 1-16 & [0219] lines 1-7; Examiner’s Notes: the TDRA table corresponding to the second group for time bundling in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a different TDRA table;”
in fact, each row index of the multiple indices has a mapping to the TDRA table corresponding to the second group of time bundling in the prior art teaches the limitation of “has a second mapping to a different TDRA table” in the instant application).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Kim et al. in the system of Xu et al.
The motivation for implementing each index of the multiple indices corresponds to a different cell of the multiple cells, is to further enhance the mechanism for a method of transmitting control information in a wireless communication system, wherein the method includes receiving, from a base station, first configuration information for configuring HARQ-ACK bundling for one or more serving cells among a plurality of serving cells configured for the terminal, receiving, from the base station, downlink control information (DCI) for scheduling one or more physical downlink shared channels (PDSCH) on each of the plurality of serving cells, receiving, from the base station, a plurality of PDSCHs on the plurality of serving cells, and transmitting, to the base station, control information including a HARQ-ACK codebook generated based on HARQ-ACK information for the plurality of PDSCHs.
Regarding claim 22, Xu et al. further teach the method, wherein the configuration information for the multiple rows of the TDRA cell index table is provided via radio resource control (RRC) (paragraph [0077] lines 1-13; Examiner’s Notes: the RRC message in the prior art teaches the limitation of “radio resource control (RRC);”
in fact, the configuration (e.g., in an RRC message) that indicates the TDRA table as illustrated in FIG. 7 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the configuration information for the multiple rows of the TDRA cell index table is provided via radio resource control (RRC)” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 24, Xu et al. further teach the method, wherein a row of the TDRA cell index table comprises an explicit indication for each cell scheduled by the DCI (paragraph [0082] lines 1-13; Examiner’s Notes: the single TDRA index value indicates multiple sets of TDRA parameters in corresponding multiple TDRA tables, the multiple sets of TDRA parameters are associated with a same row index in different TDRA tables (i.e., each TDRA parameter set [row] of values comprises an explicit scheduling indication of a cell) in the prior art teaches this limitation).
Regarding claim 26, Xu et al. further teach the method, wherein a row of the TDRA cell index table comprises an implicit indication for each cell scheduled by the DCI (paragraph [0082] lines 1-13; Examiner’s Notes: “the single TDRA index value indicates multiple sets of TDRA parameters in corresponding multiple TDRA tables. In this case, each set of TDRA parameters, of the multiple sets of TDRA parameters, corresponds to a different cell of the multiple cells scheduled by the single DCI message. In some aspects, the multiple sets of TDRA parameters are associated with a same row index in different TDRA tables (i.e., each TDRA parameter set [row] of values comprises an implicit scheduling indication of a cell)” in the prior art teaches this limitation).
Regarding claim 27, Xu et al. further teach the method, wherein a mapping between the row of the TDRA cell index table and each of the cells scheduled by the DCI is based on a sequential manner according to a scheduled cell index (paragraph [0102] lines 1-17; Examiner’s Notes: the mapping based on cell identifiers of the scheduled cells and the mapping may be specified in a sequential manner in the prior art teaches this limitation).
Regarding claim 28, Xu et al. further teach the method, wherein the TDRA cell index table comprises a joint TDRA table (paragraph [0102] lines 1-17; Examiner’s Notes: “the base station 110 may [prior to receiving the DCI], to the UE 120, a configuration…that indicates a mapping of scheduled cells and sets of TDRA parameters (i.e., a joint TDRA table)” in the prior art teaches this limitation).
Regarding claim 29, Xu et al. further teach the method, wherein each row of the joint TDRA table comprises multiple time domain resources (paragraph [0102] lines 1-17; Examiner’s Notes: “the base station 110 may transmit, to the UE 120, a configuration…that indicates a mapping of scheduled cells and sets of TDRA parameters (i.e., a joint TDRA table). In example 900, the base station 110 indicates that a first set of TDRA parameters associated with a row index [each row] (shown as TDRA parameters associated with the “First” cell in the TDRA table 925) is mapped to Cell 0, and that a second set of TDRA parameters associated with the row index (shown as TDRA parameters associated with the “Second” cell in the TDRA table 925) is mapped to Cell 1 (i.e., multiple time domain resources/parameters associated to a singular row of a joint TDRA table)” in the prior art teaches this limitation).
Regarding claim 30, Xu et al. further teach the method, wherein each row further comprises an explicit indication of time domain resources to cells potentially scheduled by the DCI (paragraph [0082] lines 1-13; Examiner’s Notes: “the single TDRA index value indicates multiple sets of TDRA parameters in corresponding multiple TDRA tables. In this case, each set of TDRA parameters, of the multiple sets of TDRA parameters, corresponds to a different cell of the multiple cells scheduled by the single DCI message. In some aspects, the multiple sets of TDRA parameters are associated with a same row index in different TDRA tables (i.e., each TDRA set [row] comprises an explicit indication of time domain resources/parameters)” in the prior art teaches this limitation).
Regarding claim 31, Xu et al. further teach the method, wherein each row further comprises an implicit indication of time domain resources to cells scheduled by the DCI (paragraph [0082] lines 1-13; Examiner’s Notes: “the single TDRA index value indicates multiple sets of TDRA parameters in corresponding multiple TDRA tables. In this case, each set of TDRA parameters, of the multiple sets of TDRA parameters, corresponds to a different cell of the multiple cells scheduled by the single DCI message. In some aspects, the multiple sets of TDRA parameters are associated with a same row index in different TDRA tables (i.e., each TDRA set [row] comprises an implicit indication of time domain resources/parameters)” in the prior art teaches this limitation).
Regarding claim 32, Xu et al. further teach the method, wherein a mapping between the joint TDRA table and each of the cells scheduled by the DCI is based on a sequential manner according to a scheduled cell index (paragraph [0102] lines 1-17; Examiner’s Notes: the mapping based on cell identifiers of the scheduled cells and specified in a sequential manner in the prior art teaches this limitation).
Regarding claim 33, Xu et al. further teach the method, wherein a single DCI bitfield is used to indicate to multiple TDRA tables corresponding to cells scheduled by the DCI (paragraph [0082] lines 1-13; Examiner’s Notes: “the single DCI message includes a single TDRA index value within a single TDRA field (i.e., a single DCI bitfield)…the single TDRA index value indicates multiple sets of TDRA parameters in corresponding multiple TDRA tables. In this case, each set of TDRA parameters, of the multiple sets of TDRA parameters, corresponds to a different cell of the multiple cells scheduled by the single DCI message” in the prior art teaches this limitation).
Regarding claim 34, Xu et al. further teach the method, wherein a size of the single DCI bitfield is fixed regardless of a number of cells scheduled by the DCI (paragraph [0084] lines 1-16; Examiner’s Notes: “the base station 110 may transmit, to the UE 120, a configuration…that indicates a number of bits (implicitly independent of the number of scheduled cells) to be included in the single TDRA field (e.g., a bit length, bit width, or bit size of the field)” in the prior art teaches this limitation) and
a number of bits corresponding to each cell is based on the number of cells scheduled by the DCI (paragraph [0102] lines 1-21; Examiner’s Notes: “the single DCI message may include a single TDRA index value within a single TDRA field, which may conserve signaling overhead and may conserve network resources. In example 900, the single TDRA index value indicates multiple sets of TDRA parameters associated with a single row index of a single TDRA table. Each set of TDRA parameters, of the multiple sets of TDRA parameters, may correspond to a different cell of the multiple cells scheduled by the single DCI message. For example, as shown by reference number 910, the single TDRA index value (shown as 0) may indicate a first set of TDRA parameters 915 (e.g., a K2 value of 0, an S value of 0, and an L value of 14) for a first scheduled cell (e.g., Cell 0) and may also indicate a second set of TDRA parameters 920 (e.g., a K2 value of 0, an S value of 0, and an L value of 7) for a second scheduled cell (e.g., Cell 1). The first set of TDRA parameters and the second set of TDRA parameters may be included in a single TDRA table 925. In some aspects, the number of bits in the TDRA field is based at least in part on the number of rows (i.e., and therefore, the number of cells scheduled) in the single TDRA table 925” in the prior art teaches this limitation).
Regarding claim 35, Xu et al. further teach the method, wherein a size of the single DCI bitfield is fixed regardless of a number of cells scheduled by the DCI (paragraph [0084] lines 1-16; Examiner’s Notes: “the base station 110 may transmit, to the UE 120, a configuration…that indicates a number of bits (implicitly independent of the number of scheduled cells) to be included in the single TDRA field (e.g., a bit length, bit width, or bit size of the field)” in the prior art teaches this limitation) and
a number of bits corresponding to each cell is fixed (paragraph [0085] lines 1-13; Examiner’s Notes: “the number of bits included in the TDRA field of the single DCI message may be based at least in part on a number of rows in a TDRA configured for a cell (e.g., for any cell) on which a communication is scheduled by the single DCI message. In some aspects, all cells scheduled by the single DCI message may be required to be configured with TDRA tables having the same number of rows (e.g., a same number of rows for a downlink TDRA table for single DCI scheduling downlink communications, or a same number of rows for an uplink TDRA table for single DCI scheduling uplink communications). For example, if all of the multiple cells scheduled by the single DCI message have TDRA tables with 16 rows (sometimes referred to as entries), then the TDRA field may contain four bits (the number of bits corresponding to each cell is fixed to 4, for instance)” in the prior art teaches this limitation).
Regarding claim 36, Xu et al. further teach the method, wherein the single DCI bitfield corresponds to a same row in multiple different TDRA tables (paragraphs [0120] lines 1-11 & [0121] lines 1-7; Examiner’s Notes: the single TDRA index value indicates multiple sets of TDRA parameters in corresponding multiple TDRA tables and the multiple sets of TDRA parameters are associated with a same row index in different TDRA tables in the prior art teaches this limitation).
Regarding claim 37, Xu et al. further teach the method, wherein the UE is configured with multiple TDRA tables each TDRA table corresponding to a different combination of scheduled cells (paragraph [0082] lines 1-13; Examiner’s Notes: “the single DCI message includes a single TDRA index value within a single TDRA field…the single TDRA index value indicates multiple sets of TDRA parameters in corresponding multiple TDRA tables. In this case, each set of TDRA parameters, of the multiple sets of TDRA parameters, corresponds to a different cell of the multiple cells scheduled by the single DCI message” in the prior art teaches this limitation).
Regarding claim 38, Xu et al. further teach the method, the base station is configured to schedule multiple cells via a single DCI (paragraph [0076] lines 1-19; Examiner’s Notes: the TDRA table to be used in association with the TDRA index value indicated in the single DCI message in the prior art teaches this limitation).
Regarding claim 39, Xu et al. further teach the method, wherein the DCI is mapped to a TDRA table and wherein the TDRA table indicates which cells are schedule by the DCI (paragraph [0082] lines 1-13; Examiner’s Notes: “the single TDRA index value indicates multiple sets of TDRA parameters in corresponding multiple TDRA tables. In this case, each set of TDRA parameters, of the multiple sets of TDRA parameters, corresponds to a different cell of the multiple cells scheduled by the single DCI message” in the prior art teaches this limitation).
Regarding claim 40, Xu et al. teach the processor of a base station (paragraph [0049] lines 1-18; Examiner’s Notes: base station, e.g., Macro BS 110a, depicted in FIG. 1 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “a base station” in the instant application) configured to:
transmit, to a user equipment (UE), configuration information of a scheduling cell for one or more rows of a TDRA cell index table (paragraph [0076] lines 1-22; Examiner’s Notes: UE 120a depicted in FIG. 1 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “a user equipment (UE);”
the time domain resource assignment (TDRA) in the prior art teaches the limitation of “time domain resource allocation (TDRA);”
in fact, transmitting, to UE 120a, configuration for a scheduling cell for the row index of a time domain resource assignment (TDRA) table, as illustrated in FIG. 1 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “transmit, to a user equipment (UE), configuration information of a scheduling cell for one or more rows of a TDRA cell index table” in the instant application); and
transmit, to the UE, downlink control information (DCI) to schedule multiple cells (paragraph [0082] lines 1-13; Examiner’s Notes: the single DCI message 705 illustrated in FIG. 7 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “downlink control information (DCI);”
in fact, transmitting, to the UE, the single DCI message corresponds to multiple cells, e.g., Cells 0 and 1, as illustrated in FIG. 7 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “transmit, to the UE, downlink control information (DCI) to schedule multiple cells” in the instant application),
the DCI comprising a single time domain resource allocation (TDRA) field containing a value with a first mapping to a first row of a TDRA cell index table comprising multiple rows (paragraph [0082] lines 1-13; Examiner’s Notes: the single DCI message 705 illustrated in FIG. 7 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “downlink control information (DCI);”
in fact, the single DCI message including a single TDRA index value within a single TDRA field corresponds to row index 1 of multiple rows, e.g., 1, 2, etc., as illustrated in FIG. 7 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “the DCI comprising a single time domain resource allocation (TDRA) field containing a value with a first mapping to a first row of a TDRA cell index table comprising multiple rows” in the instant application),
each row of the TDRA cell index table comprising multiple indices (paragraph [0082] lines 1-13; Examiner’s Notes: “TDRA index = 0” corresponds to multiple indices, e.g., 1, 2, etc., as illustrated in table 715 in FIG. 7 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “each row of the TDRA cell index table comprising multiple indices” in the instant application).
Xu et al. teach the base station without explicitly teaching implementing each index of the multiple indices corresponds to a different cell of the multiple cells.
Kim et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, wherein each index of the multiple indices corresponds to a different cell of the multiple cells (paragraphs [0208] lines 1-8 & [0218] lines 1-8; Examiner’s Notes: the corresponding cell of the multiple serving cells in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a different cell of the multiple cells;”
in fact, each row index of the multiple indices regards to the corresponding cell of the multiple serving cells in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein each index of the multiple indices corresponds to a different cell of the multiple cells” in the instant application) and
has a second mapping to a different TDRA table (paragraphs [0211] lines 1-16 & [0219] lines 1-7; Examiner’s Notes: the TDRA table corresponding to the second group for time bundling in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a different TDRA table;”
in fact, each row index of the multiple indices has a mapping to the TDRA table corresponding to the second group of time bundling in the prior art teaches the limitation of “has a second mapping to a different TDRA table” in the instant application).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Kim et al. in the system of Xu et al.
The motivation for implementing each index of the multiple indices corresponds to a different cell of the multiple cells, is to further enhance the mechanism for a method of transmitting control information in a wireless communication system, wherein the method includes receiving, from a base station, first configuration information for configuring HARQ-ACK bundling for one or more serving cells among a plurality of serving cells configured for the terminal, receiving, from the base station, downlink control information (DCI) for scheduling one or more physical downlink shared channels (PDSCH) on each of the plurality of serving cells, receiving, from the base station, a plurality of PDSCHs on the plurality of serving cells, and transmitting, to the base station, control information including a HARQ-ACK codebook generated based on HARQ-ACK information for the plurality of PDSCHs.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claim 25 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 21, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim(s).
Regarding claim 25, the prior art in single or in combination fails to teach "wherein a row of the TDRA cell index table comprises an indication that at least one cell from a set of cells scheduled by the DCI is not scheduled,” in combination with other limitation of the claim(s).
Response to Remarks/Arguments
7. Claims Art Rejections: Applicants’ amendment with arguments filed May 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
8. 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 extension fee 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 WEI ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)270-5672. The examiner can normally be reached from 8:00AM to 5:00PM Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor JAE Y. LEE can be reached on 571-270-3936. 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.
/WEI ZHAO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2479
Prosecution Insights