DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment filed 1/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4 and 18 have been amended. The previous rejection of claim 4 under 35 USC 112(d) is withdrawn in light of the amendment.
Claims 1-30 remain pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/29/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-15, 18, 25, 26, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Andersson et al. (US20240298318; “Andersson”).
Regarding claims 1 and 28-30,
Andersson discloses a method (Fig. 11-12) for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 5-6, WD 22) comprising at least one processor (Fig. 6, processor 86); and memory/computer-readable medium (Fig. 6, memory 88) storing code storing instructions coupled with the at least one processor (paragraphs 88-89) executable by the at least one processor to cause the UE to monitor for one or more semi-persistent scheduling transmissions in accordance with one or more semi-persistent scheduling configurations (Fig. 2-3; paragraphs 6, 7, 15-19; monitoring for SPS downlink reception).
Andersson further shows generating a set of feedback bits associated with the one or more semi-persistent scheduling transmissions (paragraph 9-13, 29; HARQ feedback for SPS), the set of feedback bits scheduled for transmission to a network entity in a first set of uplink symbols (paragraphs 13, 21-25; corresponding PUCCH resource to send HARQ feedback), receiving control signaling (DCI) that changes an availability of the first set of uplink symbols for transmission of the set of feedback bits (paragraph 32; DCI indicates SPS periodicity does not match TDD pattern resulting in HARQ feedback timing indicating an invalid UL slot), and deferring transmission of the set of feedback bits to a second set of uplink symbols based at least in part on the receiving of the control signaling (Fig. 12, S136; paragraph 33, 103; solution to HARQ feedback indicating invalid UL slot is to defer the HARQ feedback to a next available UL slot).
Andersson then shows determining whether to transmit and transmitting at least a portion of the set of feedback bits in the second set of uplink symbols (Fig. 13-17; paragraph 39-45; fraction of SPS HARQ-ACK bits are deferred to slot n+K1) and communicating with the network entity in accordance with the determining (paragraph 69; WD communicating with network node accordingly).
Regarding claims 2-4,
Andersson discloses determining that a size of the set of feedback bits is greater than a size of an allocation in the second set of uplink symbols for transmission of the set of feedback bits (paragraphs 39-45; PUCCH resource based on total size of HARQ-ACK bits), determining whether to transmit the portion of feedback bits in the second set of uplink symbols based at least in part on the determining that the size of the set is greater than the size of the allocation (Fig. 14-17; paragraph 39-45; fraction of SPS HARQ-ACK bits are deferred to slot n+K1) and deferring transmission of the set of feedback bits to a third set of uplink symbols based on the size of the allocation (Fig. 14-17; paragraph 39-45; remainder of bits deferred to a subsequent slot).
Regarding claims 5 and 6,
Andersson discloses generating a set of uplink control information bits scheduled for transmission to the network entity in the second set of uplink symbols, wherein the determining whether to transmit and transmitting at least the portion of the set of feedback bits in the second set of uplink symbols is based in part on generating the set of uplink control information bits (paragraphs 8-12; HARQ-ACK feedback is part of UCI along with CSI, SR).
Regarding claims 7 and 25,
Andersson discloses determining that a size of the set of feedback bits and the set of uplink control information bits is greater than a size of an allocation in the second set of uplink symbols for transmission of the set of feedback bits and the set of uplink control information bits (paragraphs 14-25; PUCCH resource determined for transmitting UCI including HARQ-ACK in consideration of the size/number of the UCI/HARQ bits) and refraining from transmitting at least the portion of the set of feedback bits and the set of uplink control information bits in the second set of uplink symbols based at least in part on the determining that the size of the set of feedback bits and the set of uplink control information bits is greater than the size of the allocation (paragraphs 25, 39; partial or complete dropping of CSI bits to multiplex UCI in the determined PUCCH resource; fraction of SPS HARQ bits deferred to first available slot, remainder deferred to a subsequent slot to the first available slot).
Regarding claim 8,
Andersson discloses deferring transmission of the set of feedback bits and the set of uplink control information bits to a third set of uplink symbols based at least in part on the size of the allocation (paragraphs 39; fraction of SPS HARQ bits deferred to first available slot, remainder deferred to slot subsequent to first available slot).
Regarding claim 9,
Andersson discloses the determining whether to transmit at least the portion of the set of feedback bits in the second set of uplink symbols is based at least in part on a type of the set of uplink control information bits (paragraphs 25; partial or complete dropping of CSI bits to multiplex UCI in the determined PUCCH resource).
Regarding claim 10,
Andersson discloses transmitting the set of uplink control information bits in the second set of uplink symbols (Fig. 14-17; paragraph 39-45, 141-142; fraction of SPS HARQ-ACK bits are deferred to slot n+K1) and deferring transmission of the set of feedback bits to a third set of uplink symbols based in part on generating the set of uplink control information bits (Fig. 14-17; paragraph 39-45, 141-142; remainder of bits deferred to a subsequent slot).
Regarding claim 11,
Andersson discloses transmitting at least the portion of the set of feedback bits in the second set of uplink symbols in accordance with the determining (Fig. 14-17; paragraph 39-45; fraction of SPS HARQ-ACK bits are deferred to slot n+K1) and deferring transmission of the set of uplink control information bits to a third set of uplink symbols based in part on transmitting the portion of the set of feedback bits in the second set of uplink symbols (Fig. 14-17; paragraph 39-45, 141-142; remainder of bits deferred to a subsequent slot).
Regarding claim 12,
Andersson discloses transmitting a compressed feedback bit in the second set of uplink symbols based at least in part on generating the set of feedback bits, associated with at least the portion of the set of feedback bits (paragraph 16; feedback for several downlink channels multiplexed into one feedback).
Regarding claims 13 and 26,
Andersson discloses determining that the second set of uplink symbols occurs a quantity of slots after the first set of uplink symbols (Fig. 4, 17; paragraph 32; value of K1 dictates deferred slot) and refraining (i.e. dropping) from transmitting/communicating with the network entity at least the portion of the set of feedback bits in the second set of uplink symbols based at least in part on the quantity of slots (Fig. 4, 17; paragraph 32, 141-142; deferred HARQ are dropped based on K1 value/slot determination).
Regarding claim 14,
Andersson discloses each slot of the quantity of slots comprises uplink symbols, flexible symbols, or both (Fig. 13, 15, 16) and the flexible symbols are configured for transmission of uplink transmissions or downlink transmissions (paragraph 108-109).
Regarding claim 15,
Andersson discloses determining an order of the set of feedback bits in a feedback codebook for transmission in the second set of uplink symbols (paragraph 16-19; constructing HARQ codebook bit sequences), wherein determining whether to transmit at least the portion of the set of feedback bits in the second set of uplink symbols is based at least in part on the order of the set of feedback bits in the feedback codebook (paragraph 141; ensuring out-of-order rule is not broken).
Regarding claim 18,
Andersson discloses generating a feedback codebook based at least in part on a set of indices associated corresponding to a serving cell, the one or more semi-persistent scheduling configurations, the first set of uplink symbols, and the second set of uplink symbols (paragraphs 16-19, 22-23; dynamic HARQ codebook; serving cell/PDCCH pairing to avoid confusion about the number of downlink channels represented in HARQ feedback) and determining to transmit at least the portion of the set of feedback bits in the second set of uplink symbols in accordance with the generated feedback codebook.
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.
Claims 16, 17, 19-24, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson in view of Ying et al. (US20240187141A1; “Ying”).
Regarding claims 16 and 17,
Andersson discloses determining to transmit at least the portion of the set of feedback bits in the second set of uplink symbols based at least in part on the order of the set of feedback bits in the feedback codebook (paragraph 16-19; constructing HARQ codebook bit sequences; paragraph 141; ensuring out-of-order rule is not broken), wherein the feedback codebook is a first type of feedback codebook or a second type of feedback codebook (paragraph 17-19; type 1/semi-static or type 2/dynamic codebook) but does not expressly disclose a concatenation of a plurality of feedback codebooks based at least in part on the order of the plurality of feedback codebooks in time.
Ying discloses analogous art (Title: Joint Coding and Multiplexing of Deferred SPS HARQ-ACK) including a concatenation of a plurality of feedback codebooks based at least in part on the order of the plurality of feedback codebooks in time (paragraph 8, 29, 32, 36, 72; deferred SPS HARQ-ACK and normal HARQ-ACK concatenated into a single joint codebook).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Andersson by providing a concatenation of a plurality of feedback codebooks based at least in part on the order of the plurality of feedback codebooks in time, as shown by Ying, thereby improving flexibility and efficiency.
Regarding claim 19,
Andersson discloses generating a set of uplink control information bits (paragraph 8-12) and a feedback codebook (paragraph 16-19; constructing HARQ codebook bit sequences; paragraph 141; ensuring out-of-order rule is not broken) scheduled for transmission to the network entity in the second set of uplink symbols, wherein determining whether to transmit at least the portion of the set of feedback bits in the second set of uplink symbols is based at least in part on generating the set of uplink control information bits and the feedback codebook is a first type of feedback codebook or a second type of feedback codebook (paragraph 17-19; type 1/semi-static or type 2/dynamic codebook) but does not expressly disclose a concatenation of a plurality of feedback codebooks based at least in part on the order of the plurality of feedback codebooks in time.
Ying discloses analogous art (Title: Joint Coding and Multiplexing of Deferred SPS HARQ-ACK) including a concatenation of a plurality of feedback codebooks based at least in part on the order of the plurality of feedback codebooks in time (paragraph 8, 29, 32, 36, 72; deferred SPS HARQ-ACK and normal HARQ-ACK concatenated into a single joint codebook).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Andersson by providing a concatenation of a plurality of feedback codebooks based at least in part on the order of the plurality of feedback codebooks in time, as shown by Ying, thereby improving flexibility and efficiency.
Regarding claims 20-21,
Andersson discloses deferring transmission of the set of feedback bits to a third set of uplink symbols that overlaps with one or more scheduled downlink transmissions and refraining from transmitting/communicating with the network entity at least a portion of the set of feedback bits in the third set of uplink symbols based at least in part on the overlapping one or more scheduled downlink transmissions (Fig. 4; paragraph 32, deferring to invalid DL slots results in dropping HARQ-ACK feedback).
Andersson further discloses an offset between the allocation and the one or more scheduled downlink transmissions (paragraph 38, 40, 42, 44, 79-80, 161-163; offset used to indicate a slot for transmission of HARQ-ACK that is not a downlink slot) but does not expressly disclose the offset satisfies a threshold.
Ying discloses analogous art (Title: Joint Coding and Multiplexing of Deferred SPS HARQ-ACK) including an offset between the allocation and the one or more scheduled downlink transmissions that satisfies a threshold (paragraph 247; K1 effective = K1 + K1 deferral with limit/threshold on minimum deferral).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Andersson by including an offset between the allocation and the one or more scheduled downlink transmissions that satisfies a threshold, as shown by Ying, thereby improving flexibility and efficiency.
Regarding claims 22-23,
Andersson discloses deferring transmission of the set of feedback bits to a third set of uplink symbols comprising a second set of feedback bits (Fig. 14-17; paragraph 39-45, 141-142; remainder of bits deferred to a subsequent slot) and refraining from transmitting at least a portion of the set of feedback bits in the third set of uplink symbols based at least in part on the deferring (Fig. 4, 17; paragraph 32, 141-142; deferred HARQ are dropped based on K1 value/slot determination) but fails to expressly show feedback bits are associated with an uplink dynamic grant.
Ying discloses analogous art (Title: Joint Coding and Multiplexing of Deferred SPS HARQ-ACK) including feedback bits associated with an uplink dynamic grant (paragraph 248; dynamic grant taken into account).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Andersson by including feedback bits associated with an uplink dynamic grant, as shown by Ying, thereby improving flexibility and efficiency.
Regarding claim 24,
Andersson does not expressly disclose determining that an allocation of a third set of uplink symbols is non-overlapping with symbols corresponding to a control resource set and deferring transmission of the set of feedback bits to a third set of uplink symbols based at least in part on the determining.
Ying discloses analogous art (Title: Joint Coding and Multiplexing of Deferred SPS HARQ-ACK) including determining that an allocation of a third set of uplink symbols is non-overlapping with symbols corresponding to a control resource set and deferring transmission of the set of feedback bits to a third set of uplink symbols based at least in part on the determining (paragraphs 145, 245-246).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Andersson by determining that an allocation of a third set of uplink symbols is non-overlapping with symbols corresponding to a control resource set and deferring transmission of the set of feedback bits to a third set of uplink symbols based at least in part on the determining, as shown by Ying, thereby improving flexibility and efficiency.
Regarding claim 27,
Andersson does not expressly disclose determining a respective priority associated with each feedback bit of the set of feedback bits for transmitting at least the portion of the set of feedback bits in the second set of uplink symbols in accordance with the respective priorities.
Ying discloses analogous art (Title: Joint Coding and Multiplexing of Deferred SPS HARQ-ACK) including determining a respective priority associated with each feedback bit of the set of feedback bits for transmitting at least the portion of the set of feedback bits in the second set of uplink symbols in accordance with the respective priorities (paragraph 36, 50-53; high/low priority consideration in constructing HARQ-ACK codebook).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Andersson by determining a respective priority associated with each feedback bit of the set of feedback bits for transmitting at least the portion of the set of feedback bits in the second set of uplink symbols in accordance with the respective priorities, as shown by Ying, thereby improving flexibility and efficiency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on pg. 11-13 of the Amendment, Applicant contends Andersson fails to disclose “control signaling that changes an availability of the first set of uplink symbols for transmission of the set of feedback bits” (emphasis by Applicant), alleging that the DCI cited from Andersson does not change an availability of the first set of uplink symbols, as claimed. Applicant further argues that the cited mismatch between SPS periodicity and TDD pattern merely occurs by happenstance, and that such incidental occurrence fails to show receiving the control signaling that changes availability, and at least by extension also fails to disclose “deferring transmission…..to a second set of uplink symbols based at least in part on the receiving of the control signaling” (emphasis by Applicant).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in the rejection and contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Andersson’s disclosure of receiving DCI that indicates a mismatch between the SPS and TDD pattern results in HARQ timing indicating an invalid (i.e. unavailable) UL slot. Furthermore, as in the contested “deferring” limitation, the solution to this mismatch result based on the received DCI in Andersson is to defer the HARQ feedback to a next available UL slot, thereby meeting a broadest reasonable interpretation of these contested claim limitations. Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks fail to acknowledge the cited disclosure from Andersson related to this deferral. Therefore, the rejections based on Andersson are properly maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 GREGORY B SEFCHECK whose telephone number is (571)272-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-4PM.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached at 571-272-3144. 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.
/GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477