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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 16, 20, 22-24, 28, 30-32, 36 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US 20240284551) in view of Xu (US 20230318753).
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 1/23/31, Cheng teaches An apparatus ([Fig.1], UE) comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory storing instructions therein that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform at least:
obtaining information of one or more non-active periods of a cell that is in discontinuous transmission ([0023], “the UE may receive a configuration of a cell DTX from the network node with the cell DTX functionality.” And [0022], “A periodic cell DTX or DRX (i.e., including active periods and non-active periods of the network node) may be configured by the network node.”);
receiving at least one resource allocation for the apparatus ([0055], “the UE may receive an indication of a new transmission from the network node.”);
determining one or more resources of the at least one resource allocation that overlap fully or in part with the one or more non-active periods of the cell ([0055], “The UE may skip a monitoring activity to monitor a PDCCH occasion for the new transmission in an event that the PDCCH occasion is overlapped with one of the one or more non-active periods of the cell DTX.”).
However, Cheng does not teach configuring a hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement codebook based at least in part on the determining one or more resources of the at least one resource allocation that overlap fully or in part with the one or more non-active periods of the cell.
In an analogous art, Xu teaches configuring a hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement codebook ([0084], “the UE may generate the HARQ feedback to indicate the PDCCH decoding results in cases where the UE is configured to report a dynamic (type 2) HARQ-ACK codebook for a PDCCH transmission.”) based at least in part on the determining one or more resources of the at least one resource allocation that overlap fully or in part with the one or more non-active periods of the cell ([0084], “the UE may attempt to decode the PDCCH transmission, and the HARQ feedback that the UE generates for that HARQ process may include ... a NACK to indicate that the UE failed to decode the PDCCH transmission.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Cheng to specify HARQ ACK codebook as taught by Xu. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to report whether a UE can decode PDCCH successfully.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 16/24/32, Cheng teaches omitting resource allocation corresponding to the one or more resources that overlap fully or in part with the one or more non-active periods of the cell ([0055], “The UE may skip a monitoring activity to monitor a PDCCH occasion for the new transmission in an event that the PDCCH occasion is overlapped with one of the one or more non-active periods of the cell DTX.”).
However, Cheng does not teach hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement codebook.
In an analogous art, Xu teaches hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement codebook ([0084], “the UE may generate the HARQ feedback to indicate the PDCCH decoding results in cases where the UE is configured to report a dynamic (type 2) HARQ-ACK codebook for a PDCCH transmission.”).
Regarding claim(s) 20/28/36, Xu teaches transmitting hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement feedback using the configured hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement codebook ([0084], “the UE may attempt to decode the PDCCH transmission, and the HARQ feedback that the UE generates for that HARQ process may include ... a NACK to indicate that the UE failed to decode the PDCCH transmission.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Cheng to specify HARQ ACK codebook as taught by Xu. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to report whether a UE can decode PDCCH successfully.
Regarding claim(s) 22/30/38, Cheng teaches wherein the apparatus is or comprises or is comprised as part of a user equipment (UE) ([Fig.1], UE).
Claim(s) 17, 25 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Xu, and further in view of Patel (US 20180270893).
Regarding claim(s) 17/25/33, Patel teaches wherein the one or more resources comprises one or more slots ([0122], “the set of resources allocated for downlink transmissions comprises time resources of one or more downlink slots and the other set of resources allocated for uplink transmissions comprises time resources of one or more uplink slots.”) or symbols .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Cheng to specify slots as taught by Patel. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to allocate time slots for communication.
Claim(s) 18-19, 26-27 and 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Xu, and further in view of Kim (US 20200252168).
Regarding claim(s) 18/26/34, Kim teaches wherein the at least one resource allocation comprises at least one candidate physical downlink shared channel resource allocation or at least one physical downlink shared channel resource allocation ([0492], “the PDSCH may be transmitted through semi-static resource allocation.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Cheng to specify PDSCH allocation as taught by Kim. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need for periodic transmission.
Regarding claim(s) 19/27/35, Kim teaches wherein the physical downlink shared channel resource allocation comprises a semi-static physical downlink shared channel resource allocation which comprises one or more of: a physical downlink shared channel time domain resource allocation; a semi-persistent scheduling resource allocation ([0495], “in The RRC message for configuring the DL SPS may include information (e.g., periodicity, subframe offset) indicating time resources in which the SPS PDSCH is allocated.”); or a semipersistent scheduling group resource allocation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Cheng to specify PDSCH allocation as taught by Kim. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need for periodic transmission.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21, 29 and 37 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIREN QIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5444. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. 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.
/ZHIREN QIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights