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 .
Examiner’s Remarks
This final office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment of February 9, 2026. Examiner has reviewed the arguments and amendment and maintains the rejections under 35 USC 102 and double patenting at this time. For the reasons noted in the USC 102 rejection with the newly added limitation, the rejections are maintained. This action is made final. See the rejections infra:
Claims 3-5, 10, 16, 17, 20-21, 25, 30-33 and 35 are canceled.
Claims 1-2, 6-9, 11-15, 18-19, 22-24, 26-29, 34 and 36 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-2, 6, 18-19, 22, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhou et al. (US Patent No. 11246141 B2 and Zhou hereafter).
Regarding Claims 1, 18 and 34, Zhou teaches a feedback method, performed by a user equipment, comprising:
receiving downlink control information configured to indicate (i.e., A logical channel in the plurality of logical channels may correspond to a radio bearer and the radio bearer may be associated with a QoS requirement. In an example, a base station may configure a logical channel to be mapped to one or more TTIs/numerologies in a plurality of TTIs/numerologies. The wireless device may receive a Downlink Control Information (DCI) via Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) indicating an uplink grant) (Col 8, lines 20-59 ) common beam information (i.e., downlink beam sweeping) (Col 21, line 47—67); and determining whether the downlink control information is correctly received, and sending (i.e., wireless device receives a downlink control information (DCI) comprising a first field indicating a transition of a cell to a dormant state and a second field indicating a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback timing. The wireless device transmits, in response to the DCI indicating the transition and via a physical uplink control channel resource, a positive acknowledgement of a reception of the DCI at a time interval based on the HARQ feedback timing) (Abstract), to a network device, a feedback result for indicating whether the downlink control information is correctly received (i.e., uplink and downlink, radio network may comprise one or more downlink and/or uplink transport channels. For example, a diagram in FIG. 5A shows example uplink transport channels comprising Uplink-Shared CHannel (UL-SCH) 501 and Random Access CHannel (RACH) 502. A diagram in FIG. 5B shows example downlink transport channels comprising Downlink-Shared CHannel (DL-SCH) 511, Paging CHannel (PCH) 512, and Broadcast CHannel (BCH) 513. A transport channel may be mapped to one or more corresponding physical channels. For example, UL-SCH 501 may be mapped to Physical Uplink Shared CHannel (PUSCH) 503. RACH 502 may be mapped to PRACH 505. DL-SCH 511 and PCH 512 may be mapped to Physical Downlink Shared CHannel (PDSCH) 514. BCH 513 may be mapped to Physical Broadcast CHannel (PBCH) 5) (Col 15, lines 5-20) .
In regards to the newly added amendment of February 9, 2026, --
wherein a positive acknowledgment response for the downlink control information is sent to the network device, wherein the positive acknowledgement response represents that the downlink control information is correctly received and a common beam indicated by the downlink control information is different from a beam currently used by the UE. --
Zhou teaches wherein a positive acknowledgment response for the downlink control information is sent to the network device, wherein the positive acknowledgement response represents that the downlink control information is correctly (i.e., delivered from the physical layer on transport channels (e.g., in downlink), scheduling information reporting (e.g., in uplink), error correction through HARQ in uplink or downlink (e.g. 1363) (Col 31, lines 53-67 to Col 32, lines 1-2) received and a common beam (i.e., multi-beam operation, a base station 120 may transmit SS blocks in multiple beams, together forming a SS burst 940. One or more SS blocks may be transmitted on one beam. If multiple SS bursts 940 are transmitted with multiple beams, SS bursts together may form SS burst set 950. ) (Col 22, lines 33-40) indicated by the downlink control information is different from a beam currently used by the UE (i.e., procedure 910 may be used to enable the wireless device 110 to measure one or more Transmission (Tx) beams associated with the base station 120 to support a selection of a first set of Tx beams associated with the base station 120 and a first set of Rx beam(s) associated with a wireless device 110. For beamforming at a base station 120, a base station 120 may sweep a set of different TX beams. For beamforming at a wireless device 110, a wireless device 110 may sweep a set of different Rx beams. In an example, a P-2 procedure 920 may be used to enable a wireless device 110 to measure one or more Tx beams associated with a base station 120 to possibly change a first set of Tx beams associated with a base station 120. A P-2 procedure 920 may be performed on a possibly smaller set of beams for beam refinement than in the P-1 procedure 910. A P-2 procedure 920 may be a special case of a P-1 procedure 910. In an example, a P-3 procedure 930 may be used to enable a wireless device 110 to measure at least one Tx beam associated with a base station 120 to change a first set of Rx beams associated with a wireless device 110) Col 23, lines 23-32) see also (i.e., UE may consider a reception of random access response successful if at least one random access response comprises a random access preamble identifier corresponding to a random access preamble transmitted by the UE. A UE may consider the contention free random access procedure successfully completed if a reception of random access response is successful. If a contention free random access procedure is triggered for a beam failure recovery request, a UE may consider a contention free random access procedure successfully complete if a PDCCH transmission is addressed to a C-RNTI. In an example, if at least one random access response comprises a random access preamble identifier, a UE may consider the random access procedure successfully completed and may indicate a reception of an acknowledgement for a system information request to upper layers. If a UE has signaled multiple preamble transmissions, the UE may stop transmitting remaining preambles (if any) in response to a successful reception of a corresponding random access response) Col 29, lines 52-67) and (i.e., Functions performed by a MAC entity may comprise mapping between logical channels and transport channels (e.g., in uplink or downlink), multiplexing (e.g. 1352 or 1362) of MAC SDUs from one or different logical channels onto transport blocks (TB) to be delivered to the physical layer on transport channels (e.g., in uplink), demultiplexing (e.g. 1352 or 1362) of MAC SDUs to one or different logical channels from transport blocks (TB) delivered from the physical layer on transport channels (e.g., in downlink), scheduling information reporting (e.g., in uplink), error correction through HARQ in uplink or downlink (e.g. 1363), and logical channel prioritization in uplink (e.g. 1351 or 1361). A MAC entity may handle a random access process (e.g. 1354 or 1364) (Col 31, lines 10-27).
Regarding Claims 2 and 19, Zhou teaches wherein a negative acknowledgement response for the downlink control information is sent to the network device, wherein the negative acknowledgement response represents that to the downlink control information is not correctly received; (i.e., Functions performed by a MAC entity may comprise mapping between logical channels and transport channels (e.g., in uplink or downlink), multiplexing (e.g. 1352 or 1362) of MAC SDUs from one or different logical channels onto transport blocks (TB) to be delivered to the physical layer on transport channels (e.g., in uplink), demultiplexing (e.g. 1352 or 1362) of MAC SDUs to one or different logical channels from transport blocks (TB) delivered from the physical layer on transport channels (e.g., in downlink), scheduling information reporting (e.g., in uplink), error correction through HARQ in uplink or downlink (e.g. 1363), and logical channel prioritization in uplink (e.g. 1351 or 1361). A MAC entity may handle a random access process (e.g. 1354 or 1364) (Col 31, lines 10-27).
Regarding Claims 4 and 21, Zhou teaches a positive acknowledgment response for the downlink control information is sent to the network device, wherein the positive acknowledgement response represents that in response to the downlink control information being correctly received (e.g., in uplink or downlink), multiplexing (e.g. 1352 or 1362) of MAC SDUs from one or different logical channels onto transport blocks (TB) to be delivered to the physical layer on transport channels (e.g., in uplink), demultiplexing (e.g. 1352 or 1362) of MAC SDUs to one or different logical channels from transport blocks (TB) delivered from the physical layer on transport channels (e.g., in downlink), scheduling information reporting (e.g., in uplink), error correction through HARQ in uplink or downlink (e.g. 1363), and logical channel prioritization in uplink (e.g. 1351 or 1361). A MAC entity may handle a random-access process (e.g. 1354 or 1364) (Col 31, lines 10-27) and a common beam indicated by the downlink control information being is different from a beam currently used by the terminal (i.e., downlink beam sweeping) (Col 21, line 47—67).
Regarding Claims 6 and 22, Zhou teaches further comprising: sending a positive acknowledgment response or a negative acknowledgement response for the downlink control information to the network device based on first bit resource information; wherein the first bit resource information is configured to indicate the positive acknowledgment response or the negative acknowledgement response for the downlink control information (i.e., MAC PDU may be a bit string that is byte aligned (e.g., a multiple of eight bits) in length. In an example, bit strings may be represented by tables in which the most significant bit is the leftmost bit of the first line of the table, and the least significant bit is the rightmost bit on the last line of the table. More generally, the bit string may be read from left to right and then in the reading order of the lines. In an example, the bit order of a parameter field within a MAC PDU is represented with the first and most significant bit in the leftmost bit and the last and least significant bit in the rightmost bit.) (Col 34, lines 48-59).
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-2, 6-9, 11-15, 18-19, 22-24, 26-29, 34 and 36 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0201690 A1).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, but they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both exhibiting similar device receives a downlink control information (DCI) comprising a first field indicating a transition of a cell to a dormant state and a second field indicating a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback timing. The wireless device transmits, in response to the DCI indicating the transition and via a physical uplink control channel resource, a positive acknowledgement of a reception of the DCI at a time interval based on the HARQ feedback timing.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to reasonably interpret the limitations of the instant application, which is the fact The Same Invention in Claims 1-2, 6-9, 11-15, 18-19, 22-24, 26-29, 34 and 36 of US Patent Application No. 18/559171 and Claims 1-20 of US Patent No. Patent Publication No. 2022/0201690 A1, since they are utilized, the similar device receives a downlink control information (DCI) comprising a first field indicating a transition of a cell to a dormant state and a second field indicating a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback timing. The wireless device transmits, in response to the DCI indicating the transition and via a physical uplink control channel resource, a positive acknowledgement of a reception of the DCI at a time interval based on the HARQ feedback timing. It is obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to remove steps or elements from a previously filed claim absent evidence of criticality of the step. The rationale why a modification such as removal of steps does not appear to render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. As such the removal is obvious.
The claims are rejected under obvious type double patenting because although different they are alleged not patentably distinct, they have a common inventor. The invention is also commonly owned by Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. at the time of invention.
This is an obviousness-type double patenting rejection. Further claim tables are provided below.
The Claims 1-2, 6-9, 11-15, 18-19, 22-24, 26-29, 34 and 36, of current application and U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220201690 A1are compared as follows, showing the obviousness of the teachings of the patent to the claimed invention:
Current Application
US Publication No. 2022/0201690
Claims 1 and 2 (for example):
Claims 1 and 3 (for example):
1.A feedback method, performed by a terminal, comprising: receiving downlink control information configured to indicate common beam information; and determining whether the downlink control information is correctly received, and sending, to a network device, a feedback result for indicating whether the downlink control information is correctly received.
2. The method wherein a negative acknowledgement response for the downlink control information is sent to the network device, wherein the negative acknowledgement response represents that in response to the downlink control information is not correctly received; or a positive acknowledgement response for the downlink control information is sent to the network device, wherein the positive acknowledgement response represents that the downlink control information is correctly received.
1. A method, comprising: transmitting, from a base station to a wireless device, a downlink control information (DCI), the DCI comprising: a first field indicating a transition of a cell to a dormant state; and a second field indicating a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback timing; and receiving from the wireless device, in response to the DCI indicating the transition, a positive acknowledgement of a reception of the DCI at a time interval based on the HARQ feedback timing.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the base station receives one or more uplink control information (UCI) bits, the one or more UCI bits comprising a bit indicating the positive acknowledgement.
In addition, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of each claim in the present application is essentially identical to the scope of a corresponding claim in the instant application and US Patent Publication No. 2022/0201690 A1, device receives a downlink control information (DCI) comprising a first field indicating a transition of a cell to a dormant state and a second field indicating a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback timing. The wireless device transmits, in response to the DCI indicating the transition and via a physical uplink control channel resource, a positive acknowledgement of a reception of the DCI at a time interval based on the HARQ feedback timing as indicated in the above claim diagram (see above for details).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhou et al., (US Patent Publication No. 20220201690 A1), “Feedback Timing” (June 23, 2022).
Zhou et al., (US Patent No. 11246141 B2), “Feedback timing” (February 8, 2022).
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 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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANE D MIZRAHI whose telephone number is 571- 272-4079. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-3:30 PM (7:30 - 4:30 p.m.).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison T. Slater can be reached on (571) 270-0375. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are (703) 872-9306 for regular communications and for After Final communication.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
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.qov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
/DIANE D MIZRAHI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Diane.Mizrahi@USPTO.gov