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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSes) were submitted on 10/01/2024 and 12/29/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of following informalities:
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains the phrase, “Embodiments of the present disclosure” in line 1, which can be implied. See MPEP § 608.01(b):
It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
The abstract contains phrases, “In this way, the HARQ-ACK codebook is adapted . . . As such, the overhead of DCI can be reduced and the transmission efficiency can be improved” (lines 8-11) which refer to purported merits of the invention. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Appropriate correction is required.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: “Configuring HARQ-ACK codebook for various DL transmissions” or the like.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 16, 19-20, 22 and 24 are objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 16 recites, “the uplink DCI” (line 2). It is suggested to replace it with “an uplink DCI” for more clarity.
Claim 19 recites, “SPS” (line 2). It is suggested to replace it with “semi-persistent scheduling (SPS)” for more clarity. Claim 20 is objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 19.
Claim 22 recites, “in spatial domain.” (last line). It is suggested to replace it with “in the spatial domain.” for more clarity. Claim 24 is objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 22.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites, “M CBGs” (last line). It is unclear what the variable “M” refers to. Is it a positive integer? For the sake of examination purpose only, it is interpreted as best understood.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 47-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al (US Publication No. 2020/0374045 A1)1 in view of Park et al (US Publication No. 2021/0167894 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yin discloses, a method of communication [¶0024-0026, a method of a UE], comprising:
receiving, at a terminal device and from a network device [¶0024-0026, at the UE and from base station apparatus], multiple code block group (CBG)-based Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) transmissions, and at least one transport block (TB)-based PDSCH transmission [¶0024-0026, receiving DL transmissions (further see ¶0091, PDSCHs as DL transmissions; further see ¶0026, “HARQ-ACK of the one or more DL transmissions are multiplexed and reported in a single uplink (UL) reporting” and “generating a HARQ-ACK codebook comprising a first HARQ-ACK sub-codebook and a second HARQ-ACK sub-codebook. The first HARQ-ACK sub-codebook is for transport block (TB) based DL transmission(s). The second HARQ-ACK sub-codebook is for CBG based DL transmission(s)”, which means that the DL transmissions include CBG based DL transmissions and at least one TB based DL transmission]; and
transmitting [¶0024, HARQ-ACK of the one or more DL transmissions are multiplexed and reported in a single uplink (UL) reporting (i.e., transmitting)], to the network device, a HARQ-acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) codebook comprising HARQ feedbacks of the multiple CBG-based PDSCH transmissions and the at least one TB-based PDSCH transmission [¶0024-0026, generating the HARQ-ACK codebook comprising a first HARQ-ACK sub-codebook and a second HARQ-ACK sub-codebook].
Although Yin discloses, “receiving, at a terminal device and from a network device, multiple code block group (CBG)-based Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) transmissions” as set forth above, Yin does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), multiple code block group (CBG)-based Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) transmissions is scheduled by a first downlink control information (DCI).
However, Park discloses, multiple code block group (CBG)-based Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) transmissions is scheduled by a first downlink control information (DCI) [¶0103, multiple CBGs scheduled by a DCI including scheduling information about the data channel from the BS; further see ¶0128, data channel (i.e., PDSCH)].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Yin with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Park to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Park into the system of Yin would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling for more reliable control of downlink transmissions in a wireless netowrk, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 2, Yin in view of Park discloses, the method of Claim 1 as set forth above.
Yin discloses, wherein the HARQ-ACK codebook [¶0024-0026, generating the HARQ-ACK codebook] comprises:
a first sub-codebook for HARQ feedbacks of the multiple CBG-based PDSCH transmissions [¶0024-0026, the HARQ-ACK codebook comprising the second HARQ-ACK sub-codebook for CBG based DL transmission(s)]; and
a second sub-codebook for HARQ feedbacks of the at least one TB-based PDSCH transmission [¶0024-0026, the HARQ-ACK codebook comprising the first HARQ-ACK sub-codebook for transport block (TB) based DL transmission(s)].
Regarding claim 47, Yin discloses, a terminal device [¶0024, user equipment (UE)] comprising: a processor [¶0024, processor; note that every UE has at least one processor].
Since claim 47 recites similar features to claim 1 without additional features, claim 47 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1, claim 47 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 48, Yin discloses, a network device [¶0024, base station (BS) ] comprising: a processor [¶0025, processor; note that every BS has at least one processor].
Since claim 48 is merely different from claim 1 in that it recites claimed features from the perspective of a network device, but recites similar features to claim 1 without further additional features. Thus, claim 48 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al (US Publication No. 2020/0374045 A1) in view of Park et al (US Publication No. 2021/0167894 A1) and further in view of Lei et al (WO 2021/035437 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Yin in view of Park discloses, the method of Claim 1 as set forth above.
Yin in view of Park does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Lei discloses, wherein the HARQ feedbacks of the multiple CBG-based PDSCH transmissions are bundled in time domain [¶0042, see Rule 1-3, if the current size of the first sub-codebook is larger than the configured maximum size, time domain bundling is performed to generate one HARQ-ACK information bits for PDSCHs on same carrier]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Lei in the system of Yin in view of Park in order to cause the system to be able to reduce HARQ information bits of the first sub-codebook, thus improving resource usage in a wireless network [e.g., ¶0042 of Lei].
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al (US Publication No. 2020/0374045 A1) in view of Park et al (US Publication No. 2021/0167894 A1) and further in view of Kho et al (US Publication No. 2021/0014004 A1) and further in view of Lin et al (US Publication No. 2024/0089965 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Yin in view of Park discloses, the method of Claim 2 as set forth above.
Yin in view of Park does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Kho discloses, receiving uplink DCI comprising a field for the first sub-codebook [¶0067, the base station may provide DCI for the uplink transmission (referred to as uplink DCI) (i.e., receiving uplink DCI) that includes uplink scheduling information and one or more parameters associated with the acknowledgment feedback report, such as DAI information, that may be used to determine acknowledgment feedback to be reported by the UE. In some cases, separate uplink total DAI fields (i.e., field) may be separately indicated in the uplink DCI for each sub-codebook (i.e., fourth sub-codebook) to be provided in the acknowledgment feedback report, irrespective of whether different sub-codebooks are a results of CBG based or TB based feedback].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Yin in view of Park with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Kho to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Kho into the system of Yin in view of Park would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling efficient HARQ reporting and flexible uplink resource allocation and improving reliability and latency in a wireless network, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Although Yin in view of Park and Kho discloses, “wherein a payload size of the first sub-codebook is based on a maximum number of CBGs for a TB” as set forth above, Yin in view of Park and Kho does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Lin discloses, wherein a payload size of the first sub-codebook is based on a maximum number of CBGs for a TB and a maximum number of transmissions schedulable by a single DCI [¶0038, the UE determines the type 1 codebook size depends on a number of K1 values, a maximum of number of PDSCHs to be scheduled by a DCI, and/or a maximum number of coding block groups (CBG) for a transport block].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Yin in view of Park and Kho with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Lin to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Lin into the system of Yin in view of Park and Kho would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling efficient DCI scheduling and flexible retransmissions and improving reliability and latency in a wireless network, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 16, Yin in view of Park discloses, the method of Claim 2 as set forth above.
Yin in view of Park does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Kho discloses, wherein the uplink DCI further comprises a field for a fourth sub-codebook for a HARQ feedback of a single CBG-based PDSCH transmission scheduled by a fourth DCI [¶0067, the base station may provide DCI for the uplink transmission (referred to as uplink DCI) (i.e., receiving that includes uplink scheduling information and one or more parameters associated with the acknowledgment feedback report, such as DAI information, that may be used to determine acknowledgment feedback to be reported by the UE. In some cases, separate uplink total DAI fields may be separately indicated in the uplink DCI for each sub-codebook to be provided in the acknowledgment feedback report, irrespective of whether different sub-codebooks are a results of CBG based or TB based feedback].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Kho in the system of Yin in view of Park for similar rationales set forth above in claim 15.
Although Yin in view of Park and Kho discloses, “wherein the uplink DCI further comprises a field for a fourth sub-codebook for a HARQ feedback of a single CBG-based PDSCH transmission scheduled by a fourth DCI” as set forth above, Yin in view of Kho does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Lin discloses, wherein a payload size of the fourth sub-codebook is based on a maximum number of CBG transmissions schedulable by a single DCI [¶0038, the UE determines the type 1 codebook size depends on a number of K1 values, a maximum of number of PDSCHs to be scheduled by a DCI, and/or a maximum number of coding block groups (CBG) for a transport block].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Lin in the system of Yin in view of Park and Kho for similar rationales set forth above in claim 15.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al (US Publication No. 2020/0374045 A1) in view of Park et al (US Publication No. 2021/0167894 A1) and further in view of Takeda et al (US Publication No. 2022/0174693 A1)2.
Regarding claim 19, Yin in view of Park discloses, the method of Claim 2 as set forth above.
Although Yin discloses, wherein the second sub-codebook comprises HARQ-ACK bits for receipt of […] data transmissions [¶0024-0026, receiving DL transmissions (further see ¶0091, PDSCHs as DL transmissions); further see ¶0026, “HARQ-ACK of the one or more DL transmissions are multiplexed and reported in a single uplink (UL) reporting” and “generating a HARQ-ACK codebook comprising a first HARQ-ACK sub-codebook for transport block (TB) based DL transmission(s) (i.e., second sub-codebook); note that the HARQ-ACK sub-codebook has HARQ-ACK bits for receipt of DL transmission], Yin in view of Park does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), the data transmission is modified to be “SPS” data transmission.
However, Takeda discloses, “SPS” data transmission [¶0064, SPS PDSCH].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Yin in view of Park with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Takeda to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Takeda into the system of Yin in view of Park would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling to reduce latency for recurring data transmission and improve spectral efficiency and power efficiency, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 20, Yin in view of Park discloses, the method of Claim 2 as set forth above.
Yin in view of Park does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Takeda discloses, wherein HARQ-ACK bits for receipt of SPS data transmissions is behind the end of the second sub-codebook [¶0034, In Embodiment 1-3-1, the UE may map, as HARQ-ACK sub-codebooks for the SPS, the HARQ-ACK bits corresponding to the SPS PDSCH (i.e., HARQ-ACK bits for receipt of SPS data transmission) associated with the activation DCI and the SPS PDSCH and the SPS release not associated with the activation DCI after the HARQ-ACK sub-codebooks corresponding to the dynamic TB-based PDSCH and CBG-based PDSCH; further FIG. 4B, SPS subcodebook is positioned after the TB-based subcodebook (i.e., second sub-codebook)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Takeda in the system of Yin in view of Park for similar rationales set forth above in claim 19.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6, 12-13, 17-18 and 21-24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zeng et al (US Publication No. 2022/0256586 A1) [¶0064]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN JONG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3216. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:30pm(M-T).
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, Ian Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUN JONG KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
1 Yin was cited in an IDS by the applicant.
2 Since Takeda is relying on PCT publication (WO 2020/194514 A1) (see attached) to claim a priority date 03/26/2019, Xiao is qualified as a prior art under 102(a)(2) for the instant application with the effective filing date 07/02/2021.