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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 01/27/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-16, 22-23, and 27-28 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lei US 2022/0368475 and 3GPP TS38.321- Release 16, published on 2019-12.
The claimed subject matter: more than 16 HARQ processes, is disclosed in 3GPP TS TS38.321- Release 16, section 6.4.2 – HARQ optimization for NR NTN. It teaches 32 HARQ processes, which is greater than 16.
The claim limitation: “determining a composition manner of CG-DFI” is interpreted as determining a format of transmission for CG-DFI. When there is a transmission, that implies at least one format is available. The claim does not require two or more formats, or one format is selected amongst many formats. In other words, a composition manner having a first manner requires the prior art to disclose only 1 format to meet the claim.
Regarding the claim limitation: “in which a number of hybrid automatic repeat request feedback (HARQ-ACK) information comprised in the CG-DFI is equal to the maximum uplink HARQ process number”, it is not readily apparent what is HARQ information. It could be a number of bits, or bytes, or any particular type of information (for example, TPC or TPMI). So this limitation is broad. In addition, if the number of HARQ process is 32, then the number of HARQ information is 32. It could be 32 bits, or any multiple of 32 bits, or a number larger than 32 but having a common denominator of 16 bits or 2 bytes, for example 128 bits. Because information could be bits, or bytes, or octaves.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-3, 5-16, 22-23, and 27-28 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5 to 8, 16, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 16 recites “wherein the composition manner further corresponds to one of: a second manner, in which a number of hybrid automatic repeat request feedback (HARQ-ACK) information comprised in the CG-DFI is greater than the maximum uplink HARQ process number; a third manner, in which a number of hybrid automatic repeat request feedback (HARQ-ACK) information comprised in the CG-DFI is less than the maximum uplink HARQ process number, each hybrid automatic repeat request feedback (HARQ-ACK) information comprised in the CG-DFI corresponds to one logical value, and the logical value corresponds to a result of a logical operation of HARQ-ACK information of more than one uplink HARQ process; a fourth manner, in which a number of hybrid automatic repeat request feedback (HARQ-ACK) information comprised in the CG-DFI is less than the maximum uplink HARQ process number, each hybrid automatic repeat request feedback (HARQ-ACK) information comprised in the CG-DFI corresponds to one logical value, and each logical value corresponds to a result of a logical operation of HARQ-ACK information for N uplink HARQ processes, where N is a ratio of the maximum uplink HARQ process number to 16, and is an integer greater than 0; or a fifth manner, in which all HARQ-ACK information comprised in the CG-DFI corresponds to a portion of uplink HARQ processes among all the uplink HARQ processes with the maximum uplink HARQ process number, and the portion of uplink HARQ processes are uplink HARQ processes with continuous identifiers.”
Since claim 13 is amened to recite “equal to”, a dependent claim that recite “greater than” or “less than” would constitute a broadening of the claim. For this reason. Claim 16 does not further narrow a parent claim.
Because claim 16 has an “or’ condition. Examiner is required only to treat the claimed 2nd and 3rd manner. Although Examiner recognizes parts of claim 16 would further narrow the parent claim but for the OR condition (namely the claimed fifth manners).
Dependent claims 22 and 23 depend on claim 16, they are rejected for the same reason.
Having examined claim 16, now turn to claim 5. Claim 5 recites: “wherein the composition manner corresponds to a second manner, in which a number of hybrid automatic repeat request feedback (HARQ-ACK) information comprised in the CG-DFI is greater than the maximum uplink HARQ process number. Claim 5 depends on claim 1, which now amended to recite “equal to”. In other words, claim 5 broadens parent claim 1 to greater than or equal too.
Similarly for claim 6, that depends on claim 1. Claim 6 recites less than. So Claim 6 broadens claim 1 to less than or equal too.
Claim 8 depends on claim 6 and is therefore rejected for the same reason.
Claim 7 has very similar language to claim 6. The key difference is Claim 7 further comprises a ratio between the number of HARQ processes and 16. In this case, the ratio is 2. Examiner is not sure whether claiming ratio of 2 is materially significant enough to constitute a further narrowing a parent claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 13-14, 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei US 2022/0368475 in view of 3GPP TS38.321- Release 16, published on 2019-12.
The claimed invention is best represented in Fig. 2 of the current application. The claimed determining step and sending step are steps 21 and steps 22 respectively.
PNG
media_image1.png
409
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Lei reference is best represented in Fig. 7, where Fig. 7 step 704 is identical to Fig. 2 Step 22 of the current application.
PNG
media_image2.png
768
430
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For claim 1, Lei teaches a method for sending configured grant-downlink feedback information (CG-DFI), performed by a network device, comprising:
determining a composition manner of CG-DFI, (Fig. 7, Step 703, PP104 teaches format 0_1 or 0_0.)
sending, to a user equipment, a CG-DFI conforming to the composition manner, wherein the composition manner corresponds to a first manner, (Fig. 7, Step 704, PP118)
in which a number of hybrid automatic repeat request feedback (HARQ-ACK) information comprised in the CG-DFI is equal to the maximum uplink HARQ process number (PP61 teaches 128 HARQ ACK Info bit: 128 divided by 32 is 4; So Lei still teaches 32 HARQ-ACK information of 4 bits each).
Lei does not teach a maximum uplink hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process number corresponding to the composition manner is greater than 16.
However, TS TS38.321, section 6.4.2 – HARQ optimization for NR NTN teaches 32 HARQ processes, which is greater than 16.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of Lei with TS TS38.321, which provides:
“Solutions to avoid reduction in peak data rates in NTN were discussed. One solution is to increase the number of HARQ processes to match the longer satellite round trip delay to avoid stop-and-wait in HARQ procedure. Another solution is to disable UL HARQ feedback to avoid stop-and-wait in HARQ procedure and rely on RLC ARQ for reliability.”
For claim 2, Lei teaches the method according to claim 1: sending a wireless link layer signaling to the user equipment, wherein the wireless link layer signaling comprises indication information configured to indicate the composition manner of CG-DFI. (Lei, Fig. 6, Step 601, Receive RRC signaling)
For claim 3, Lei teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein determining the composition manner of CG-DFI comprises: determining the composition manner of CG-DFI agreed in a protocol. (Lei, PP97, DCI formats are part of 3GPP standard, hence protocol)
For claim 13, Lei teaches a method for receiving configured grant-downlink feedback information (CG-DFI), performed by a user equipment, comprising:
receiving, from a network device, a CG-DFI conforming to a composition manner (Lei, Fig. 6, step 604, PP97), wherein the composition manner corresponds to a first manner (based on the claim interpretation presented in the arguments, a first manner is the same a the composition manner),
in which a number of hybrid automatic repeat request feedback (HARQ-ACK) information comprised in the CG-DFI is equal to the maximum uplink HARQ process number. (PP61 teaches 128 HARQ ACK Info bit: 128 divided by 32 is 4; So Lei still teaches 32 HARQ-ACK information of 4 bits each).
Lei does not teach a maximum uplink hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process number corresponding to the composition manner is greater than 16.
However, TS TS38.321, section 6.4.2 – HARQ optimization for NR NTN teaches 32 HARQ processes, which is greater than 16.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of Lei with TS TS38.321, which provides:
“Solutions to avoid reduction in peak data rates in NTN were discussed. One solution is to increase the number of HARQ processes to match the longer satellite round trip delay to avoid stop-and-wait in HARQ procedure. Another solution is to disable UL HARQ feedback to avoid stop-and-wait in HARQ procedure and rely on RLC ARQ for reliability.”
For claim 14, Lei teaches the method according to claim 13: receiving a wireless link layer signaling from the network device, wherein the wireless link layer signaling comprises indication information configured to indicate the composition manner of CG-DFI. (Lei, Fig. 6, Step 601, Receive RRC signaling)
For claim 15, Lei teaches, the method according to claim 13, wherein the composition manner is a composition manner of CG-DFI agreed in a protocol (Lei, PP97, DCI formats are part of 3GPP standard, hence protocol).
For claim 27, Lei teaches a communication device, comprising: a processor; and a memory storing a computer program executable by the processor; wherein the processor is configured to: (Lei, Fig. 3, base unit)
determine a composition manner of CG-DFI, (Fig. 7, Step 703, PP104 teaches format 0_1 or 0_0.)
send, to a user equipment, a CG-DFI conforming to the composition manner, wherein the composition manner corresponds to a first manner, (Fig. 7, Step 704, PP118)
in which a number of hybrid automatic repeat request feedback (HARQ-ACK) information comprised in the CG-DFI is equal to the maximum uplink HARQ process number (PP61 teaches 128 HARQ ACK Info bit: 128 divided by 32 is 4; So Lei still teaches 32 HARQ-ACK information of 4 bits each).
Lei does not teach a maximum uplink hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process number corresponding to the composition manner is greater than 16.
However, TS TS38.321, section 6.4.2 – HARQ optimization for NR NTN teaches 32 HARQ processes, which is greater than 16.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of Lei with TS TS38.321, which provides:
“Solutions to avoid reduction in peak data rates in NTN were discussed. One solution is to increase the number of HARQ processes to match the longer satellite round trip delay to avoid stop-and-wait in HARQ procedure. Another solution is to disable UL HARQ feedback to avoid stop-and-wait in HARQ procedure and rely on RLC ARQ for reliability.”
For claim 28, Lei teaches A communication device, comprising: a processor; and a memory storing a computer program executable by the processor; wherein the processor is configured to perform the method according to claim 13. (Lei, Fig. 2, remote unit)
Claims 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei US 2022/0368475 in view of TS38.321, further in view of Zeng, US-20230075353-A1.
For claim 9, Lei teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the composition manner corresponds to a fifth manner, (claim 9 depends on claim 1, and claim 1 does not recite a first to a fourth manner. Therefore, the claimed fifth manner could be interpreted as “another matter”. Furthermore, the claimed first manner in claim is not defined. It is not apparent how a first manner would be different than another manner. Thus the claimed fifth manner is just a manner).
in which all HARQ-ACK information comprised in the CG-DFI corresponds to a portion of uplink HARQ processes among all the uplink HARQ processes with the maximum uplink HARQ process number, (the claim does not define on how large the portion is; it could be a whole portion or limited portion, or half portion; If it is a portion of 1, then Lei already teaches it).
Lei does not explicitly teach the portion of uplink HARQ processes are uplink HARQ processes with continuous identifiers. However, in the analogous art, Zeng teaches the portion of uplink HARQ processes are uplink HARQ processes with continuous identifiers. (Zeng, PP75 teaches continuous HARQ ids).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of Lei with Zeng, to implement the well understood technique of HARQ codebooks. Both Lei and Zeng teach HARQ codebooks. Zeng is relied upon for elaborating on the technical details.
For claim 10, Lei and Zeng teach the method according to claim 9, Zeng teaches an information field configured to indicate a minimum identifier among identifiers of the uplink HARQ processes corresponding to all HARQ- ACK information comprised in the CG-DFI. (Zeng, PP75 teaches “ID1+idnum−1” is a minimum ID)
For Claim 12, Lei and Zeng teach the method according to claim 9. Lei teaches sending a wireless link layer signaling to a user equipment, (Lei, Fig. 7, step 704, PP108)
wherein the wireless link layer signaling comprises a number of uplink HARQ processes corresponding to all HARQ-ACK information comprised in the CG-DFI. (Lei, Fig. 7, step 704, PP108)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: after a rigorous search, the following subject matter of claim 11 is not found in the prior art:
“wherein the wireless link layer signaling comprises indication information, and the indication information is configured to indicate that the CG-DFI does not comprise an information field configured to indicate a minimum identifier among identifiers of the uplink HARQ processes corresponding to all HARQ-ACK information comprised in the CG-DFI; wherein all HARQ-ACK information comprised the CG-DFI corresponds to continuous uplink HARQ processes starting from an uplink HARQ process with the minimum identifier among all uplink HARQ processes with the maximum uplink HARQ process number. “
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charles C Jiang whose telephone number is (571)270-7191. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7 am to 5 pm Eastern Time.
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, TC Group director, Deborah Reynolds can be reached at (571) 272-0734. 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.
/CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights