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 .
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS statements filed to date have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In each of the independent claims 1, 6, and 11, and taking claim 1 as an example, the limitation “wherein the at least one DCI comprises a first DCI format and/or a second DCI format, the first DCI format being used to schedule one PDSCH, and the second DCI format being used to schedule at least two PDSCHs corresponding to at least one PDSCH group” (emphasis added) is indefinite. The limitation “and/or” covers the situation where either “a first DCI format” or “a second DCI format” would infringe this claim (broadest reasonable claim construction). However, the limitation “and” in the subsequent limitation “the first DCI format being used to schedule one PDSCH, and the second DCI format being used to schedule …” (emphasis added) would cover the situation that both of the first and second DCI formats would be required to infringe this claim. Hence, the scope of the claim is not clear. The examiner suggests changing the limitation “and/or” to “and” or alternatively, change the limitation “and” to “and/or” as one means of overcoming this rejection.
The remaining dependent claims fall along with their respective independent claims from which they depend. For purposes of applying prior art, the vague and indefinite claim limitations identified above are interpreted to read on the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al., US 2022/0014317, (“Wu”), in view of Papasakellariou, US 2022/0201726, (“Papasakellariou”).
Independent Claims
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches “A wireless communication method, comprising:
receiving at least one Downlink Control Information (DCI) transmitted by a network device (paragraph no. 0046, “A base station schedules a terminal device to receive a PDSCH through Downlink Control Information (DCI)”); and
determining or generating a target Hybrid Automatic Repeat reQuest Acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) codebook, the target HARQ-ACK codebook corresponding to Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) reception scheduled by the at least one DCI, Semi-Persistent Scheduling (SPS) PDSCH release indicated by the at least one DCI or Secondary Cell (SCell) dormancy indicated by the at least one DCI (paragraph no. 0046, “A base station schedules a terminal device to receive a PDSCH through Downlink Control Information (DCI), wherein the DCI includes indication information of a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) resource for transmitting an HARQ codebook corresponding to the PDSCH”; note that at least the first alternative limitation “the target HARQ-ACK codebook corresponding to Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) reception scheduled by the at least one DCI” is taught by Wu),
wherein the at least one DCI comprises a first DCI format and/or a second DCI format, the first DCI format being used to schedule one PDSCH, and the second DCI format being used to schedule at least two PDSCHs corresponding to at least one PDSCH group” (paragraph no. 0046, “A base station schedules a terminal device to receive a PDSCH through Downlink Control Information (DCI)” and paragraph no. 0047, “If the feedback is dynamic codebook feedback, the DCI also includes following information: a Downlink assignment index (DAI), wherein the DAI includes counter DAI information and/or total DAI information, wherein the counter DAI information is used for indicating which PDSCH in a current HARQ feedback window a currently scheduled PDSCH is”; note that the claimed “a first DCI format … the first DCI format being used to schedule one PDSCH” is taught in these paragraphs).
Wu does not teach but Papasakellariou teaches “the second DCI format being used to schedule at least two PDSCHs corresponding to at least one PDSCH group” (paragraph no. 0194, “In step 1510, a UE (such as the UE 116) receives a first configuration for monitoring PDCCH providing a first DCI format used for scheduling one PDSCH reception and a second configuration for monitoring PDCCH providing a second DCI format used for scheduling multiple PDSCH receptions”; the multiple PDSCH receptions include at least two PDSCHs corresponding to at least one PDSCH group; note that Papasakellariou teaches both of the claimed first and second DCI formats in the wherein clause) as recited in claim 1. Note also that Wu teaches that the terminal receives one or more PDSCH groups, each group including a plurality of PDSCHs (see Fig. 4 and its respective written description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Wu by incorporating the teachings of Papasakellariou to enable the network to schedule, via a second DCI format, a group of PDSCHs to the UE, thereby reducing the overhead signaling between the network and the UE when scheduling PDSCH transmissions. Also, the use of a second DCI format can enable the use of separate configurations for respective PDCCH monitoring which are beneficial at least for providing a different number of PDCCH candidates per CCE aggregation level, as suggested by Papasakellariou in paragraph no. 0194.
Regarding independent claim 6, this independent claim is a corresponding apparatus claim of the method claim 1 and recites similar subject matter. As such, the rationale behind the above rejection of claim 1 applies with equal force to this independent claim and as further amplified below to highlight the minor differences between the claims.
Regarding further independent claim 6, see Wu, Fig. 13 for the claimed structural elements of the claim.
Regarding independent claim 11, Wu teaches “A network device, comprising a processor and a memory (Fig. 7, network device and Fig. 13 which could be a network device - paragraph no. 0201), wherein the memory has a computer program stored thereon, and the processor is configured to invoke and execute the computer program stored in the memory to:
transmit at least one Downlink Control Information (DCI) to a terminal device (paragraph no. 0046, “A base station schedules a terminal device to receive a PDSCH through Downlink Control Information (DCI)”); and
determine or generate a target Hybrid Automatic Repeat reQuest Acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) codebook, the target HARQ-ACK codebook corresponding to Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) reception scheduled by the at least one DCI, Semi-Persistent Scheduling (SPS) PDSCH release indicated by the at least one DCI or Secondary Cell (SCell) dormancy indicated by the at least one DCI (paragraph no. 0046, “A base station schedules a terminal device to receive a PDSCH through Downlink Control Information (DCI), wherein the DCI includes indication information of a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) resource for transmitting an HARQ codebook corresponding to the PDSCH”; note that at least the first alternative limitation “the target HARQ-ACK codebook corresponding to Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) reception scheduled by the at least one DCI” is taught by Wu),
wherein the at least one DCI comprises a first DCI format and/or a second DCI format, the first DCI format being used to schedule one PDSCH, and the second DCI format being used to schedule at least two PDSCHs corresponding to at least one PDSCH group (paragraph no. 0046, “A base station schedules a terminal device to receive a PDSCH through Downlink Control Information (DCI)” and paragraph no. 0047, “If the feedback is dynamic codebook feedback, the DCI also includes following information: a Downlink assignment index (DAI), wherein the DAI includes counter DAI information and/or total DAI information, wherein the counter DAI information is used for indicating which PDSCH in a current HARQ feedback window a currently scheduled PDSCH is”; note that the claimed “a first DCI format … the first DCI format being used to schedule one PDSCH” is taught in these paragraphs).
Wu does not teach but Papasakellariou teaches “the second DCI format being used to schedule at least two PDSCHs corresponding to at least one PDSCH group” (paragraph no. 0194, “In step 1510, a UE (such as the UE 116) receives a first configuration for monitoring PDCCH providing a first DCI format used for scheduling one PDSCH reception and a second configuration for monitoring PDCCH providing a second DCI format used for scheduling multiple PDSCH receptions”; the multiple PDSCH receptions include at least two PDSCHs corresponding to at least one PDSCH group; note that Papasakellariou teaches both of the claimed first and second DCI formats in the wherein clause) as recited in claim 11. Note also that Wu teaches that the terminal receives one or more PDSCH groups, each group including a plurality of PDSCHs (see Fig. 4 and its respective written description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Wu by incorporating the teachings of Papasakellariou to enable the network to schedule, via a second DCI format, a group of PDSCHs to the UE, thereby reducing the overhead signaling between the network and the UE when scheduling PDSCH transmissions. Also, the use of a second DCI format can enable the use of separate configurations for respective PDCCH monitoring which are beneficial at least for providing a different number of PDCCH candidates per CCE aggregation level, as suggested by Papasakellariou in paragraph no. 0194.
Dependent Claims
Regarding claims 2, 7, and 12, Wu teaches “wherein said determining or generating the target HARQ-ACK codebook comprises:
determining or generating first HARQ-ACK information or a first HARQ-ACK sub- codebook, the first HARQ-ACK information or the first HARQ-ACK sub-codebook comprising HARQ-ACK bits corresponding to PDSCHs in a first PDSCH group; the target HARQ-ACK codebook comprising the first HARQ-ACK sub-codebook or the first HARQ-ACK information, and the at least one PDSCH group comprising the first PDSCH group” (see Fig. 4 and its respective written description which disclose that the terminal generates HARQ-ACK bits (“first HARQ-ACK information”) for uplink transmission in PUCCH0 and the HARQ-ACK bits correspond to the PDSCH(s) 0-4 received in the PDSCH group number 0 (“first PDSCH group”)).
Regarding claims 3, 8, and 13, Wu teaches “wherein said determining or generating the target HARQ-ACK codebook comprises:
determining or generating second HARQ-ACK information or a second HARQ-ACK sub- codebook, the second HARQ-ACK information or the second HARQ-ACK sub-codebook comprising HARQ-ACK bits corresponding to PDSCHs in a second PDSCH group; the target HARQ-ACK codebook comprising the second HARQ-ACK sub-codebook or the second HARQ- ACK information, the at least one PDSCH group comprising the second PDSCH group, and the first PDSCH group being different from the second PDSCH group” (see Fig. 4 and its respective written description which disclose that the terminal generates HARQ-ACK bits (“second HARQ-ACK information”) for uplink transmission in PUCCH1 and the HARQ-ACK bits correspond in part to the PDSCH(s) 5-8 received in the PDSCH group number 1 (“second PDSCH group”); note that the PDSCH group #0 is different than the PDSCH group #1).
Claim(s) 4, 9, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu and Papasakellariou as applied to claims 2, 7, 12 above, and further in view of Nishio et al., US 2024/0187136, (“Nishio”).
Regarding claims 4, 9, and 14, Wu does not teach but Nishio teaches “wherein the first HARQ-ACK information or the first HARQ-ACK sub-codebook further comprises a HARQ-ACK bit corresponding to the SPS PDSCH release or the SCell dormancy” (both of the alternatives “SPS PDSCH release” and “SCell dormancy” are taught, see paragraph no. 0195, “a HARQ-ACK codebook may include HARQ-ACK bits … (or also referred to a s SPS PDSCH release) or Scell dormancy”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Wu and Papasakellariou by incorporating the teachings of Nishio to enable the inclusion of HARQ-ACK bits for other signals within the HARQ-ACK codebook, as suggested by Nishio in paragraph no. 0195.
Claim(s) 5, 10, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu and Papasakellariou as applied to claims 2, 7, 12 above, and further in view of Li et al., US 2022/0303979, (“Li”).
Regarding claims 5, 10, and 15, Wu teaches “wherein said determining or generating the first HARQ-ACK information or the first HARQ-ACK sub-codebook comprises:
determining or generating a 2-bit HARQ-ACK for the PDSCHs in the first PDSCH group, the SPS PDSCH release, or the SCell dormancy when a terminal is not configured with a first parameter and is configured with a second parameter as 2; or otherwise determining or generating a 1-bit HARQ-ACK (the first alternative limitation “determining or generating a 2-bit HARQ-ACK for the PDSCHs in the first PDSCH group” is taught, see paragraph no. 0053 which discloses the parameter K which equals 2 and this parameter K is a quantity of HARQ codebook bits corresponding to each of all PDSCHs; the negative limitation “when a terminal is not configured with a first parameter” is met by Wu since Wu is silent regarding this presence of this first parameter),
and the second parameter is used to indicate a maximum number of code words that is schedulable by one DCI” (Wu discloses that the parameter K =2 corresponds to the terminal device supporting 2 codewords, see paragraph no. 0053).
Wu does not teach but Li teaches “wherein the first parameter is used to enable HARQ-ACK spatial bundling” (see paragraph no. 0093, “Example 2: The configuration information indicates … and that the HARQ-ACK spatial bundling indication is enabled”) as recited in claims 5, 10, and 15.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Wu and Papasakellariou by incorporating the teachings of Li to not implement HARQ-ACK spatial bundling to reduce the complexity of generating a HARQ-ACK codebook for transmission to the base station.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WON TAE C. KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1812. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571)272-7884. 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.
/WON TAE C KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2414