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 .
The preliminary amendment filed on 01/11/2024 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9-15, 18, 20, 22, 25, 29, and 30 are amended. Claims 6, 8, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26-28, and 31 are cancelled. Thus, claims 1-5, 7, 9-16, 18, 20, 22, 25, 29, and 30 are pending and addressed below.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 9-11, 14-15, 22, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by DIMOU; Konstantinos et al US 20220232592 A1, priority date 20210118, hereinafter DIMOU.
Regarding claims 1 and 29, DIMOU teaches, a codebook feedback method, performed by a terminal, comprising:
reporting an enhanced Type 3 Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request Acknowledgement HARQ-ACK (HARQ-ACK) codebook to an access network device in response to a trigger rule being satisfied (DIMOU [75] “a DCI 604 may be transmitted to the UE to request feedback via an enhanced Type 3 codebook … the UE may support at least one enhanced Type 3 HARQ-ACK codebook, which may be smaller in size in comparison to other Type 3 HARQ-ACK codebooks (e.g., non-enhanced Type 3 codebooks). The codebook size of a single enhanced Type 3 HARQ-ACK codebook triggered at the UE may be at least determined based on an RRC configuration.”, teaches UE (=terminal) reporting enhanced Type 3 HARQ-ACK in response to a trigger by a DCI (Downlink Control Information) from the base station (=access network). Trigger rule is under BRI, therefore, the reception of DCI for sending the HARQ-ACK. “Enhanced Type 3 HARQ-ACK codebook” is interpreted, under BRI, as either modified, special, improved, or one-shot Type 3 HARQ-ACK codebook).
With respect to claim 29, claim recites the identical features of claim 1 for a corresponding terminal device. Therefore, it is subjected to the same rejection. DIMOU further teaches, a terminal device, comprising: a processor; and a transceiver (see DIMOU Fig. 13).
Regarding claims 14 and 30, DIMOU teaches, A codebook feedback method, performed by an access network device, comprising:
sending at least one of a trigger message or a configuration message for an enhanced Type 3 HARQ-ACK Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request Acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) codebook in response to a trigger rule being satisfied (DIMOU [75] “Thus, based on the slot format change 602, a DCI 604 may be transmitted to the UE to request feedback via an enhanced Type 3 codebook.”, teaches a trigger rule being, under BRI, “slot format change”, to send a DCI (=a trigger message) for enhanced Type 3 HARQ-ACK. “Enhanced Type 3 HARQ-ACK codebook” is interpreted, under BRI, as either modified, special, improved, or one-shot Type 3 HARQ-ACK codebook); and
receiving the enhanced Type 3 HARQ-ACK codebook reported by a terminal (implied in DIMOU [75]).
With respect to claim 30, claim recites the identical features of claim 14 for a corresponding terminal device. Therefore, it is subjected to the same rejection. DIMOU further teaches, an access network device, comprising: a processor; and a transceiver (see DIMOU Fig. 14).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, DIMOU teaches the methods, as outlined in the rejection of claims 1 and 14.
DIMOU further teaches, wherein the enhanced Type 3 HARQ-ACK codebook is a Type 3 HARQ-ACK codebook specifically for Semi- Persistent Scheduling (SPS) Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) (DIMOU [75] “FIG. 6 is a diagram 600 associated with an enhanced Type 3 codebook for SPS PUCCH HARQ-ACK.”).
Regarding claim 9, DIMOU teaches the method, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
DIMOU further teaches, further comprising: receiving a trigger message, wherein the trigger message comprises a first indication field, and the first indication field is configured to trigger the terminal to report the enhanced Type 3 HARQ-ACK codebook; and reporting the enhanced Type 3 HARQ-ACK codebook to the access network device based on the trigger message (DIMOU [75] “a DCI 604 may be transmitted to the UE to request feedback via an enhanced Type 3 codebook”. DCI, under BRI, is a trigger message and is known to comprising fields of bits (see DIMOU [81]).
Regarding claim 10, DIMOU teaches the method, as outlined in the rejection of claim 9.
DIMOU further teaches, further comprising: receiving a configuration message in response to the trigger rule being satisfied, wherein the configuration message comprises a second indication field (Configuration message is interpretated as a message including additional information such as HARQ ID. DCI in DIMOU comprises a configuration message having a field for HARQ ID. DIMOU [81] “FIG. 7 is a diagram 700 associated with a DCI 704 for requesting an enhanced Type 3 codebook indicative of deferred SPS PUCCH HARQ-ACK 706 and/or cancelled SPS PUCCH HARQ-ACK. Two SPS configurations may include SPS1 occasion 1 708a associated with HARQ ID 1 and SPS2 occasion 1 708b associated with HARQ ID 2, which correspond to the first occasions of each of two different SPS configurations. … The network may indicate 2 SPS HARQ-ACK bits in the DCI 704, where the DCI 704 may include a bit indicative of a request for the deferred SPS PUCCH HARQ-ACK 706 …”).
Regarding claim 11, DIMOU teaches the method, as outlined in the rejection of claim 10.
DIMOU further teaches, wherein the second indication field indicates one of: a process ID of the HARQ-ACK; statistics of the HARQ-ACK, wherein the statistics indicate a number of feedbacks; or a codebook size of the enhanced Type 3 HARQ-ACK codebook (see rejection above of claim 10 and DIMOU [81]; Fig. 7 for process ID of the HARQ-ACK. Satisfies “one of” criteria).
Regarding claim 22, DIMOU teaches the method, as outlined in the rejection of claim 14.
DIMOU further teaches, further comprising: sending a configuration message to the terminal in response to the trigger rule being satisfied, wherein the configuration message comprises a second indication field (Configuration message is interpretated as a message including additional information such as HARQ ID. DCI in DIMOU comprises a configuration message having a field for HARQ ID. DIMOU [81] “FIG. 7 is a diagram 700 associated with a DCI 704 for requesting an enhanced Type 3 codebook indicative of deferred SPS PUCCH HARQ-ACK 706 and/or cancelled SPS PUCCH HARQ-ACK. Two SPS configurations may include SPS1 occasion 1 708a associated with HARQ ID 1 and SPS2 occasion 1 708b associated with HARQ ID 2, which correspond to the first occasions of each of two different SPS configurations. … The network may indicate 2 SPS HARQ-ACK bits in the DCI 704, where the DCI 704 may include a bit indicative of a request for the deferred SPS PUCCH HARQ-ACK 706 …”); and
sending a trigger message to the terminal, wherein the trigger message comprises a first indication field, and the first indication field is configured to trigger the terminal to report the enhanced Type 3 HARQ-ACK codebook (DIMOU [75] “a DCI 604 may be transmitted to the UE to request feedback via an enhanced Type 3 codebook”. DCI, under BRI, is a trigger message and is known to comprising fields of bits (see DIMOU [81]),
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 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 3-4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DIMOU, as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, in view of ELSHAFIE; Ahmed et al US 20220311581 A1, hereinafter ELSHAFIE.
Regarding claims 3 and 16, DIMOU teaches the methods, as outlined in the rejection of claims 1 and 15.
DIMOU does not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, ELSHAFIE teaches, wherein the trigger rule comprises triggering based on a trigger period, and the trigger period is a period for triggering reporting of the enhanced Type 3 HARQ-ACK codebook (A1 ELSHAFIE [63] “A time period between the DL grant/reception of the PDSCH and transmitting the HARQ-ACK feedback may correspond to K1. After a time period K1 from the reception of the PDSCH, the UE may transmit the HARQ-ACK feedback.”, teaches HARQ-ACK transmission (=triggering) is based on time period indicated by K1. Same time period technique can be applied to triggering enhanced Type 3 HARQ-ACK).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of DIMOU to include the features as taught by ELSHAFIE above for mitigation of crowded uplink (UL) semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) feedback transmissions (ELSHAFIE [0001]).
Regarding claim 4, DIMOU, in view of ELSHAFIE, teaches the method, as outlined in the rejection of claim 3.
ELSHAFIE further teaches, further comprising: determining the trigger period predefined by a protocol; or determining the trigger period based on a predefined rule, wherein the predefined rule is based on one or more of an SPS PDSCH configuration period, a feedback K1 value, and a time window value (ELSHAFIE [63] “A time period between the DL grant/reception of the PDSCH and transmitting the HARQ-ACK feedback may correspond to K1. After a time period K1 from the reception of the PDSCH, the UE may transmit the HARQ-ACK feedback.”, teaches predefined rule with K1 value. Satisfies “or” and “one or more” criteria in the claim).
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DIMOU, as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, in view of El Hamss; Aata et al US 20230093477 A1, hereinafter El Hamss.
Regarding claims 5 and 18, DIMOU teaches the methods, as outlined in the rejection of claims 1 and 14.
DIMOU does not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, El Hamss teaches, wherein the trigger rule comprises satisfying a preset threshold for triggering, wherein the preset threshold is one of: a number of times the access network device does not receive SPS HARQ-ACK feedback; a length of time the access network device does not receive SPS HARQ-ACK feedback; a number of times the access network device skips SPS PDSCH; a length of time the access network device skips SPS PDSCH; a number of times the access network device actually transmits SPS PDSCH; a number of times the terminal continuously successfully decodes SPS PDSCH; or a number of times the terminal continuously non-successfully decodes SPS PDSCH (El Hamss [0157] “In one embodiment, a WTRU may determine whether to report HARQ-ACK feedback for one or more (skipped or un-skipped) SPS PDSCH transmission occasions (or HARQ Process(es)) based on (e.g., as a function of) at least one of: … [0161] Based on a counter obtained from the network (e.g., a gNB). As described herein, a WTRU may receive an indication (e.g., from a gNB) indicating the total number of un-skipped SPS PDSCH transmissions in a group of SPS PDSCH transmission occasions. The WTRU may determine the set of HARQ Processes for which to provide HARQ-ACK feedback based on the indicated counter value. For example, if the counter value matches with the WTRU's understanding of the total number of un-skipped SPS PDSCH transmissions, the WTRU may report HARQ-ACK for the un-skipped SPS PSCH HARQ processes,”, teaches reporting (=triggering) HARQ-ACK feedback when the number of transmitted SPS PDSCH from gNB (=access network) matches with “WTRU’s understanding of the total number” i.e., a threshold number. Satisfies “one of” criteria of the claim).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of DIMOU to include the features as taught by El Hamss above for uplink control enhancement in wireless communications (El Hamss [0002]).
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DIMOU, as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, in view of Huang; Chun-Wei et al US 20220322375 A1, hereinafter Huang.
Regarding claims 7 and 20, DIMOU teaches the methods, as outlined in the rejection of claims 1 and 14.
DIMOU does not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Huang teaches, wherein the trigger rule comprises reporting a UE caching capability, and the UE caching capability indicates an upper limit on a number of HARQ-ACKs corresponding to SPS PDSCH cached by the terminal, the method further comprising: sending a UE capability message to the access network device, wherein the UE capability message indicates the UE caching capability of the terminal (UE caching capability of SPS PDSCH is interpreted as UE capability of simultaneously receiving a number SPS PDSCH, which implies caching the PDSCH and associated HARQ-ACK. Huang [455] “In step 2615, the UE transmits a second UE capability corresponding to the UE's capability of (number of) simultaneous reception of PDSCH(s) … In step 2620, the UE receives one or more SPS configurations associated to a BWP.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of DIMOU to include the features as taught by Huang above for enhanced reception of downlink signal in a wireless communication system (Huang [0001], Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 25 are 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. Claim 13 is subjected to the same objection because of its dependency on the objected claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rastegardoost; Nazanin US 20240072975 A1 - Transmitting Pending Feedback Information, para [275].
LI; Xincai US 20230057476 A1 - METHODS AND DEVICES FOR CONFIGURING HARQ-ACK FEEDBACK, para [76].
Zhang; Yushu US 20230163885 A1 - METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR GROUP BASED PHYSICAL DOWNLINK SHARED CHANNEL (PDSCH) HYBRID AUTOMATIC REPEAT REQUEST (HARQ)-ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (ACK) FEEDBACK IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-0232. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM EST; Friday variable.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached on 571-270-3770. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475