DETAILED ACTION
In response to communications filed 03/27/2026.
Claims 16-20 are added.
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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 .
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 3 and 14 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.
Claim 3 and 14 similarly recite “upon expiration of a CG retransmission timer…” Claim 1 has been amended to specifically teach the CG retransmission is not initiated. It is unclear how the CG retransmission timer expires when the claims establishes a CG retransmission timer is not initiated. Examiner requests clarifications and/or amendments in a future response to overcome the current rejection.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo et al. (US 2024/0195535 A1) in view of Lee (US 2024/0171317 A1) hereinafter “Kuo” and “Lee” respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Kuo teaches A user equipment (Kuo: paragraphs 0044, 0081 & Figs. 1-3, device), comprising:
at least one memory (Kuo: paragraph 0081 & Fig. 3, memory); and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (Kuo: paragraph 0081 & Fig. 3, processor coupled to memory) and configured to cause the UE to:
generate an empty medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) (Kuo: paragraphs 0036, 0046-0047 & Fig. 2, device may generate a MAC protocol data unit (MAC PDU or Transport Block (TB)) comprising no user data for the configured grant uplink shared channel (CG-PUSCH)) according to an uplink (UL) configured grant (CG) (Kuo: paragraph 0047, said MAC PDU for the CG-PUSCH), the empty MAC PDU free of any MAC service data units (SDUs) (Kuo: paragraph 0050, user data is absent in the TB and/or no service data unit (SDU));
instruct a physical layer to transmit (Kuo: paragraph 0047, delivers the MAC PDU to the PHY layer) the empty MAC PDU on a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process (Kuo: paragraph 0047, TB without user data may be transmitted through HARQ process) associated with the UL CG (Kuo: paragraph 0047, said MAC PDU for the CG-PUSCH); and
prevent autonomous retransmission of the empty MAC PDU (Kuo: paragraphs 0058 & 0067, device is prevented from performing unnecessary retransmissions of UCI-only TBs; see also paragraph 0055 & Fig. 2, deprioritizes selection of the HARQ process associated with this TB for one or more transmissions on the CG).
Kuo fails to explicitly teach transmitting without initiating a CG retransmission timer for the HARQ process. However, Lee from an analogous art similarly teaches managing a configured grant timer for a HARQ process (Lee: paragraphs 0204-0206) and further teaches when a UE receives an uplink grant for a HARQ Process, the UE should stop a configured grant timer associated with the HARQ process if the uplink grant is for retransmission and a HARQ buffer associated with the HARQ process is empty (i.e., there is no data to retransmit by using the HARQ process)). Lee additionally teaches the UE does not start a configured grant timer for a HARQ process which is associated with the configured grant based on a predetermined condition (i.e. if the MAC PDU includes zero MAC SDUs or the MAC PDU includes only the padding BSR) (Lee: paragraphs 0215-0222).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of Kuo to include the features of Lee for cases when the MAC PDU transmitted on the CG is empty.
Regarding Claim 2, Kuo-Lee teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to flush a HARQ buffer in response to transmitting the empty MAC PDU on the UL CG to prevent autonomous retransmission of the empty MAC PDU (Kuo: paragraph 0066, flush the TB from HARQ buffer).
Regarding Claim 3, Kuo-Lee teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to flush the HARQ buffer upon expiration of a CG retransmission timer to prevent autonomous retransmission of the empty MAC PDU (Kuo: paragraph 0069, If the CGRT timer expires, the device may flush the TB from the buffer associated with the HARQ process).
Regarding Claim 4, Kuo-Lee teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to bypass delivery of UL CG information associated HARQ information to a HARQ entity in response to transmission of the empty MAC PDU (Kuo: paragraph 0069, by flushing the TB from the buffer, the device may not need to select that HARQ process for transmitting the TB on a subsequent CG).
Regarding Claim 5, Kuo-Lee teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to receive a configuration to flush the HARQ buffer in response to transmitting the empty MAC PDU (Kuo: paragraph 0056, HARQ process allowed in accordance to configuration information).
Regarding Claim 6, Kuo-Lee teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to discard a UL DG scheduling a retransmission of the empty MAC PDU based on a HARQ buffer being empty (Kuo: paragraphs 0032 0048, dynamic grant (DG) PUSCH overlapping with one or more CG-PUSCHs).
Regarding Claim 7, Kuo-Lee teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to transmit the empty MAC PDU on the UL CG without initiating a CG timer for the HARQ process (Lee: paragraphs 0215-0222, UE does not start a configured grant timer for a HARQ process which is associated with the configured grant). Examiner recites same reasoning to combine Kuo-Lee as provided in rejected claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10, Kuo-Lee teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to multiplex uplink control information (UCI) on UL resources allocated by the UL CG that are used for the transmission of the empty MAC PDU (Kuo: paragraph 0046, TB is generated to be multiplexed with or include control information only).
Regarding Claim 11, Kuo-Lee teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the empty MAC PDU comprises padding information or buffer status reporting (BSR) information (Kuo: paragraph 0051, TB includes padding buffer state report (BSR)).
Regarding Claim 12, Kuo teaches A method performed by a user equipment (Kuo: paragraphs 0036, 0046-0047 & Fig. 2, device), comprising:
generating an empty medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) (Kuo: paragraphs 0036, 0046-0047 & Fig. 2, device may generate a MAC protocol data unit (MAC PDU or Transport Block (TB)) comprising no user data for the configured grant uplink shared channel (CG-PUSCH)) according to an uplink (UL) configured grant (CG) (Kuo: paragraph 0047, said MAC PDU for the CG-PUSCH), the empty MAC PDU free of any MAC service data units (SDUs) (Kuo: paragraph 0050, user data is absent in the TB and/or no service data unit (SDU));
instructing the physical layer to transmit (Kuo: paragraph 0047, delivers the MAC PDU to the PHY layer) the empty MAC PDU on a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process (Kuo: paragraph 0047, TB without user data may be transmitted through HARQ process) associated with the UL CG (Kuo: paragraph 0047, said MAC PDU for the CG-PUSCH); and
preventing autonomous retransmission of the empty MAC PDU (Kuo: paragraphs 0058 & 0067, device is prevented from performing unnecessary retransmissions of UCI-only TBs; see also paragraph 0055 & Fig. 2, deprioritizes selection of the HARQ process associated with this TB for one or more transmissions on the CG).
Kuo fails to explicitly teach transmitting without initiating a CG retransmission timer for the HARQ process. However, Lee from an analogous art similarly teaches managing a configured grant timer for a HARQ process (Lee: paragraphs 0204-0206) and further teaches when a UE receives an uplink grant for a HARQ Process, the UE should stop a configured grant timer associated with the HARQ process if the uplink grant is for retransmission and a HARQ buffer associated with the HARQ process is empty (i.e., there is no data to retransmit by using the HARQ process)). Lee additionally teaches the UE does not start a configured grant timer for a HARQ process which is associated with the configured grant based on a predetermined condition (i.e. if the MAC PDU includes zero MAC SDUs or the MAC PDU includes only the padding BSR) (Lee: paragraphs 0215-0222).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of Kuo to include the features of Lee for cases when the MAC PDU transmitted on the CG is empty.
Regarding Claim 13, Kuo-Lee teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches flushing a HARQ buffer in response to transmitting the empty MAC PDU on the UL CG to prevent autonomous retransmission of the empty MAC PDU (Kuo: paragraph 0066, flush the TB from HARQ buffer).
Regarding Claim 14, Kuo-Lee teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches flushing the HARQ buffer upon expiration of a CG retransmission timer to prevent autonomous retransmission of the empty MAC PDU (Kuo: paragraph 0069, If the CGRT timer expires, the device may flush the TB from the buffer associated with the HARQ process).
Regarding Claim 15, Kuo teaches A network equipment (NE) (Kuo: paragraphs 0040, 0081 & Fig. 3, network device), comprising:
at least one memory (Kuo: paragraphs 0040, 0081 & Fig. 3, necessary memory component); and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (Kuo: paragraphs 0040, 0081 & Fig. 3, necessary processor component) and configured to cause the NE to:
prevent autonomous retransmissions (Kuo: paragraphs 0058 & 0067, device is prevented from performing unnecessary retransmissions of UCI-only TBs; see also paragraph 0055 & Fig. 2, deprioritizes selection of the HARQ process associated with this TB for one or more transmissions on the CG) of empty medium access control (MAC) protocol data units (PDUs) (Kuo: paragraphs 0036, 0046-0047 & Fig. 2, device may generate a MAC protocol data unit MAC PDU (or Transport Block (TB)) comprising no user data for the configured grant uplink shared channel (CG-PUSCH)) for an uplink (UL) configured grant (CG) (Kuo: paragraph 0047, said MAC PDU for the CG-PUSCH), the empty MAC PDUs free of any MAC service data units (SDUs) (Kuo: paragraph 0050, user data is absent in the TB and/or no service data unit (SDU)); and
receive, from the UE, the empty MAC PDU (Kuo: paragraph 0047, delivers the MAC PDU) on the HARQ process (Kuo: paragraph 0047, TB without user data may be transmitted through HARQ process) associated with the UL CG (Kuo: paragraph 0047, said MAC PDU for the CG-PUSCH).
Kuo fails to explicitly teach transmitting an indication to the UE to prevent retransmission and refraining from initiating a CG retransmission timer for the HARQ process. However, Lee from an analogous art similarly teaches managing a configured grant timer for a HARQ process (Lee: paragraphs 0204-0206) and further teaches when a UE receives an uplink grant for a HARQ Process, the UE should stop a configured grant timer associated with the HARQ process if the uplink grant is for retransmission and a HARQ buffer associated with the HARQ process is empty (i.e., there is no data to retransmit by using the HARQ process)). Lee additionally teaches the UE does not start a configured grant timer for a HARQ process which is associated with the configured grant based on a predetermined condition (i.e. if the MAC PDU includes zero MAC SDUs or the MAC PDU includes only the padding BSR) (Lee: paragraphs 0215-0222). Lee additionally teaches a base station or network node transmitting an indication to the UE to prevent retransmission (Lee: paragraph 0140) providing prevent autonomous retransmissions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of Kuo to include the features of Lee for cases when the MAC PDU transmitted on the CG is empty.
Regarding Claim 16, Kuo teaches A method performed by a network equipment (NE) (Kuo: paragraphs 0040, 0081 & Fig. 3, network device), comprising:
prevent autonomous retransmissions (Kuo: paragraphs 0058 & 0067, device is prevented from performing unnecessary retransmissions of UCI-only TBs; see also paragraph 0055 & Fig. 2, deprioritizes selection of the HARQ process associated with this TB for one or more transmissions on the CG) of empty medium access control (MAC) protocol data units (PDUs) (Kuo: paragraphs 0036, 0046-0047 & Fig. 2, device may generate a MAC protocol data unit MAC PDU (or Transport Block (TB)) comprising no user data for the configured grant uplink shared channel (CG-PUSCH)) for an uplink (UL) configured grant (CG) (Kuo: paragraph 0047, said MAC PDU for the CG-PUSCH), the empty MAC PDUs free of any MAC service data units (SDUs) (Kuo: paragraph 0050, user data is absent in the TB and/or no service data unit (SDU)); and
receiving, from the UE, the empty MAC PDU (Kuo: paragraph 0047, delivers the MAC PDU) on the HARQ process (Kuo: paragraph 0047, TB without user data may be transmitted through HARQ process) associated with the UL CG (Kuo: paragraph 0047, said MAC PDU for the CG-PUSCH).
Kuo fails to explicitly teach transmitting an indication to the UE to prevent retransmission and refraining from initiating a CG retransmission timer for the HARQ process. However, Lee from an analogous art similarly teaches managing a configured grant timer for a HARQ process (Lee: paragraphs 0204-0206) and further teaches when a UE receives an uplink grant for a HARQ Process, the UE should stop a configured grant timer associated with the HARQ process if the uplink grant is for retransmission and a HARQ buffer associated with the HARQ process is empty (i.e., there is no data to retransmit by using the HARQ process)). Lee additionally teaches the UE does not start a configured grant timer for a HARQ process which is associated with the configured grant based on a predetermined condition (i.e. if the MAC PDU includes zero MAC SDUs or the MAC PDU includes only the padding BSR) (Lee: paragraphs 0215-0222). Lee additionally teaches a base station or network node transmitting an indication to the UE to prevent retransmission (Lee: paragraph 0140) providing prevent autonomous retransmissions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of Kuo to include the features of Lee for cases when the MAC PDU transmitted on the CG is empty.
Regarding Claim 17, Kuo-Lee teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches bypassing delivery of UL CG information and associated HARQ information to a HARQ entity in response to transmission of the empty MAC PDU (Kuo: paragraph 0069, by flushing the TB from the buffer, the device may not need to select that HARQ process for transmitting the TB on a subsequent CG).
Regarding Claim 18, Kuo-Lee teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches receiving a configuration to flush the HARQ buffer in response to transmitting the empty MAC PDU (Kuo: paragraph 0066, flush the TB from HARQ buffer).
Regarding Claim 19, Kuo-Lee teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches discarding a UL DG scheduling a retransmission of the empty MAC PDU based on a HARQ buffer being empty (Kuo: paragraphs 0032 0048, dynamic grant (DG) PUSCH overlapping with one or more CG-PUSCHs).
Regarding Claim 20, Kuo-Lee teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches transmitting the empty MAC PDU on the UL CG without initiating a CG timer for the HARQ process (Lee: paragraphs 0215-0222, UE does not start a configured grant timer for a HARQ process which is associated with the configured grant). Examiner recites same reasoning to combine Kuo-Lee as provided in rejected claim 12.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo-Lee in view of Ye et al. (US 2024/0008084 A1) hereinafter “Ye.”
Regarding Claim 8, Kuo-Lee teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above however fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor treats the HARQ process as released upon receive a listen before talk (LBT) failure indication associated with the empty MAC PDU. However, Ye from an analogous art similarly teaches a user equipment may not autonomously retransmit the MAC PDU with a prioritized configured uplink grant when an LBT failure occurs (Ye: paragraph 0028; see also paragraph 0030 & Fig. 2, deprioritizing uplink grant). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of Kuo-Lee to include deprioritizing the uplink grant for retransmission as taught by Ye so as to prevent unnecessary retransmission of a transport block.
Regarding Claim 9, Kuo-Lee teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to release the HARQ process associated with the UL CG upon receiving a listen before talk (LBT) failure indication indicating that transmission of the empty MAC PDU was not completed. However, Ye from an analogous art similarly teaches a user equipment may not autonomously retransmit the MAC PDU with a prioritized configured uplink grant when an LBT failure occurs (Ye: paragraph 0028; see also paragraph 0030 & Fig. 2, deprioritizing uplink grant). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of Kuo-Lee to include deprioritizing the uplink grant for retransmission as taught by Ye so as to prevent unnecessary retransmission of a transport block.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1, 12, 15 and 16 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAJEEB ANSARI whose telephone number is (571)270-5446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am to 2pm.
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, ASAD NAWAZ can be reached at (571) 272-3988. 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.
/NAJEEB ANSARI/Examiner, Art Unit 2463
/ASAD M NAWAZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights