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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
1. The application of Cui et al. for the "SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENABLING OR DISABLING HARQ FEEDBACK" filed 03/22/2024 has been examined. This application is a Continuation of PCT/CN2022/129124, filed 11/02/2022. The preliminary amendment filed 03/11/2026 has been entered and made of record. Claims 1, 5, 9, 13, 15, 19 are pending in the present application.
2. The applicant should use this period for response to thoroughly and very closely proof read and review the whole of the application for correct correlation between reference numerals in the textual portion of the Specification and Drawings along with any minor spelling errors, general typographical errors, accuracy, assurance of proper use for Trademarks TM, and other legal symbols @, where required, and clarity of meaning in the Specification, Drawings, and specifically the claims (i.e., provide proper antecedent basis for “the'' and “said'' within each
claim). Minor typographical errors could render a Patent unenforceable and so the applicant is
strongly encouraged to aid in this endeavor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
5. Claims 1, 5, 9, 13, 15, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrestha et al. (US#11,929,831) in view of Wei et al. (US#12,206,506).
Regarding claims 9, 15, the references disclose a system and method for enabling or disabling HARQ feedback operation in wireless communications, according to the essential features of the claims. Shrestha et al. (US#11,929,831) discloses a wireless communication device/node, comprising: at least one processor configured to (see Figs. 9, 13 for the structure of the UE/gNB includes processor 908/1308 and memory 910/1310): receive/send, via a receiver a from a wireless communication node, a first signaling and a second signaling (Figs. 3A-G; Col. 20, lines 14-17: At signaling 308, At reference 308, the base station transmits, and the UE receives, the downlink communication, with the downlink communication including a HARQ process identifier of HARQ process), wherein the second signaling includes an indication of whether the first signaling is to be used in indicating whether the at least one hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback for at least one HARQ process is to be disabled (Figs. 3A-G; Col. 17, lines 24-32: At reference 302, the base station transmits, and the UE receives, information indicating that HARQ feedback is disabled for HARQ process), wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive/send, via the receiver from the wireless communication node, a third signaling, wherein the third signaling indicates whether the at least one HARQ feedback for the at least one HARQ process is to be disabled (Figs 4-7; Col. 25, lines 27-33: At block 410 - receiving a configuration indicating that HARQ feedback is disabled for one or more HARQ processes of a set of HARQ processes); and determine whether the at least one HARQ feedback of the at least one HARQ process is to be disabled, according to the first signaling, the second signaling, and the third signaling (Figs 4-7; Col. 25, lines 46-50: At block 430 - selectively providing HARQ feedback for the downlink communication based at least in part on the information indicating whether HARQ feedback is disabled for the HARQ process).
However, Shrestha reference does not explicitly disclose wherein determining, according to the first/third signaling, whether the at least one HARQ feedback of the at least one HARQ process is to be disabled, when the second signaling indicates that the first signaling is/is not to be used in indicating whether the HARQ feedback is to be disabled. In the same field of endeavor, Wei et al. (US#12,206,506) discloses in Fig. 7 a flow diagram illustrated process for handling HARQ feedback transmission includes determining whether to transmit a HARQ feedback for the DL data according to the DCI. When the UE receives the DCI containing the first DCI field and the second DCI field, the UE may determine whether to enable/disable the corresponding HARQ feedback transmission by checking the values of the first DCI field and/or the second DCI field. If the UE determines that the HARQ-feedback-transmission disabling criterion is satisfied (e.g., the HARQ-feedback-transmission disabling condition is satisfied), in action 706, the UE's MAC entity may forgo instructing the PHY layer (of the UE) to perform the HARQ feedback transmission, and thus the HARQ feedback for the PDSCH reception may not be generated and transmitted by the UE. In contrast, if the UE determines that the HARQ-feedback-transmission disabling criterion is not satisfied (e.g., the HARQ-feedback-transmission disabling condition is not satisfied), in action 708, the UE's MAC entity may instruct the PHY layer (of the UE) to perform the HARQ feedback transmission (Col. 20, lines 14-41: Action 706/708 for determining HARQ feedback is disabled/enabled).
One skilled in the art would have recognized the need for effectively and efficiently enabling or disabling HARQ feedback operation in wireless communications, and would have applied the process for handling HARQ feedback transmissions in a communication system as taught by Wei’s into the system of Shrestha’s techniques for disabling hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback for a HARQ process, so that improving quality of service for the UE (e.g., by reducing a likelihood of HARQ process errors), reducing wastage of network resources, and improving network performance and efficiency (Shrestha et al.: Col. 16, line 66 to Col. 17, line 5). Therefore, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Wei’s methods and apparatuses for handling hybrid automatic repeat request feedback transmissions into Shrestha’s disabling HARQ feedback with the motivation being to provide a method and system for enabling or disabling HARQ feedback.
Regarding claims 9, 16, Shrestha et al. in view of Wei et al. teaches the apparatus of claims 8, 15 as set forth above, Shrestha et al. further teaches wherein the third signaling comprises a radio resource control (RRC) signaling (Figs. 3A-G: Col. 17, lines 29-32: via radio resource control (RRC) signaling).
Regarding claims 1, 5, they are method claims corresponding to the apparatus claims 9, 13 discussed above. Therefore, claims 1, 5 are analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 9, 13 above.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Ye et al. (US#2025/0293811) is cited to show HARQ disablement.
The Ji et al. (US#11,881,948) is cited to show DCI based feedback transmission.
The Tsai et al. (US#12,426,044) shows method and UE foe HARQ feedback operation.
The Ye et al. (US#11,595,159) shows HARQ design for wireless communication.
The Muruganathan et al. (US#11,722,263) shows HARQ codebook construction with feedback enabling/disabling per HARQ process.
The Xin et al. (US#2025/0227715) shows method, UE and network node.
The Niu et al. (US#2024/0072939) shows HARQ-ACK codebook handling.
The Matsuda et al. (US#2022/0294569) shows terminal device, BS, method for controlling terminal/BS devices.
The Shrestha et al. (US#12,063,179) shows enabled/disabled HARQ feedback and HARQ-less processes.
The Liu et al. (US#2025/0056553) shows electronic apparatus for wireless comm.
.
7. Applicant's future amendments need to comply with the requirements of MPEP § 714.02, MPEP § 2163.04 and MPEP § 2163.06.
"with respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims." See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should * * * specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). See In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262,191 USPQ at 96 (emphasis added). "The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification." Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm'r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01 (i) and § 1302.01.
Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner's amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1,75(d)(1 ). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced."
"USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2106. "
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. Phan whose telephone number is (571) 272-3149. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri from 6:00 to 3:00.
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, Chirag Shah, can be reached on (571) 272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
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.
9. 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 any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at toll free 1-866-217-9197.
Mphan
03/13/2026
/MAN U PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477