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 submitted on 03/27/2024 and 10/29/2024 have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 7-8, 10, 14-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Applicant provide NPL document, CATT (3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #105-e, R1-2104506, May 19th -May 27th, 2021, hereinafter CATT).
Regarding claim 1, CATT discloses, a method comprising:
determining, by a wireless communication device, a transmission setting for coverage enhancement (CE) (see e.g., “When an NTN NB-IoT UE is configured with higher layer parameter twoHARQ-ProcessesConfig…”, page 2, line 3 and/or “CEmodeB in eMTC NTN”, sec. 2.1, line 6, and/or “CEmodeA eMTC over…”, sec. 2.1, line 8, and/or “disabling HARQ feedback can be reused in some case to provide wide coverage, such as the coverage enhancement mode CEmodeB”, sec. 2.1, lines 5-6, and/or “Enabling/disabling on HARQ feedback for downlink transmission should be at least configurable per HARQ process via UE specific RRC signaling”, sec. 2.1, lines 18-19 ;Examiner’s note: CEmodeA and CEmodeB corresponds to transmission settings for coverage enhancement determination by UE); and
determining, by the wireless communication device, whether to disable at least one hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process according to the transmission setting for CE (see e.g., and/or “Proposal 1: Reuse disabling HARQ feedback mechanism of NR NTN for CEmodeB in eMTC NTN”, sec. 2.1, line 7 and/or “Proposal 3: Enabling/disabling on HARQ feedback for downlink transmission should be at least configurable per HARQ process via UE specific RRC signaling”, sec. 2.1, lines 18-19).
Regarding claim 7, CATT discloses, determining, by the wireless communication device, to disable the at least one HARQ process when the transmission setting for CE comprises a first type, and to enable the at least one HARQ process when the transmission setting for CE does not comprise the first type (see e.g., “CEmodeB in eMTC NTN” sec. 2.1, line 6, and/or “CEmodeA eMTC…”, sec. 2.1, line 8, and/or “disabling HARQ feedback can be reused in some case to provide wide coverage, such as the coverage enhancement mode CEmodeB”, sec. 2.1, lines 5-6, and/or “Observation 1: Disabling HARQ feedback doesn't show clear benefit to NB-IoT NTN and CEmodeA eMTC use case. Proposal 2: No enhancement in disabling HARQ feedback is needed for HARQ in NB-IoT NTN and CEmodeA eMTC over satellite”, page 1, sec. 2.1, lines 11-14); and
determining, by the wireless communication device, whether to disable at least one hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process according to the transmission setting for CE (see e.g., and/or “Proposal 1: Reuse disabling HARQ feedback mechanism of NR NTN for CEmodeB in eMTC NTN”, sec. 2.1, line 7 and/or “Proposal 3: Enabling/disabling on HARQ feedback for downlink transmission should be at least configurable per HARQ process via UE specific RRC signaling”, sec. 2.1, lines 18-19).
Regarding claim 8, CATT discloses, determining, by the wireless communication device, to enable the at least one HARQ process when the transmission setting for CE comprises a first type (see e.g., “CEmodeB in eMTC NTN” sec. 2.1, line 6, and/or “CEmodeA eMTC…”, sec. 2.1, line 8, “Observation 1: Disabling HARQ feedback doesn't show clear benefit to NB-IoT NTN and CEmodeA eMTC use case. Proposal 2: No enhancement in disabling HARQ feedback is needed for HARQ in NB-IoT NTN and CEmodeA eMTC over satellite”, page 1, sec. 2.1, lines 11-14); and
determining, by the wireless communication device, to disable the at least one HARQ process when the transmission setting for CE comprises a second type (see e.g., “disabling HARQ feedback can be reused in some case to provide wide coverage, such as the coverage enhancement mode CEmodeB”, sec. 2.1, lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 10, CATT discloses, wherein the transmission setting for CE comprises one of CEModeA or CEModeB (see e.g., “CEmodeB in eMTC NTN” sec. 2.1, line 6, and/or “CEmodeA eMTC…”, sec. 2.1, line 8, “Observation 1: Disabling HARQ feedback doesn't show clear benefit to NB-IoT NTN and CEmodeA eMTC use case. Proposal 2: No enhancement in disabling HARQ feedback is needed for HARQ in NB-IoT NTN and CEmodeA eMTC…”, page 1, sec. 2.1, lines 11-14).
Regarding claim 14, CATT discloses, determining, by the wireless communication device, whether to disable the at least one HARQ process according to at least one of: (i) the transmission setting of CE (see e.g., “CEmodeB in eMTC NTN” sec. 2.1, line 6, and/or “CEmodeA eMTC…”, sec. 2.1, line 8, and/or “disabling HARQ feedback can be reused in some case to provide wide coverage, such as the coverage enhancement mode CEmodeB”, sec. 2.1, lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 15, CATT discloses, determining, by the wireless communication device, whether to disable the at least one HARQ process according to (i) the transmission setting of CE (see e.g., “CEmodeB in eMTC NTN” sec. 2.1, line 6, and/or “CEmodeA eMTC…”, sec. 2.1, line 8, and/or “disabling HARQ feedback can be reused in some case to provide wide coverage, such as the coverage enhancement mode CEmodeB”, sec. 2.1, lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 17, CATT discloses, a wireless communication device (see e.g., “When an NTN NB-IoT UE is configured with higher layer parameter twoHARQ-ProcessesConfig…”, page 2, line 3) comprising:
at least one processor (see e.g., UE with inherent processor) configured to:
determine a transmission setting for coverage enhancement (CE) (see e.g., “When an NTN NB-IoT UE is configured with higher layer parameter twoHARQ-ProcessesConfig…”, page 2, line 3 and/or “CEmodeB in eMTC NTN” sec. 2.1, line 6, and/or “CEmodeA eMTC over satellite traffic”, sec. 2.1, line 8, and/or “disabling HARQ feedback can be reused in some case to provide wide coverage, such as the coverage enhancement mode CEmodeB”, sec. 2.1, lines 5-6, and/or “Enabling/disabling on HARQ feedback for downlink transmission should be at least configurable per HARQ process via UE specific RRC signaling”, sec. 2.1, lines 18-19 ;Examiner’s note: CEmodeA and CEmodeB corresponds to transmission settings for coverage enhancement determination by UE); and
determine whether to disable at least one hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process according to the transmission setting for CE (see e.g., and/or “Proposal 1: Reuse disabling HARQ feedback mechanism of NR NTN for CEmodeB in eMTC NTN”, sec. 2.1, line 7 and/or “Proposal 3: Enabling/disabling on HARQ feedback for downlink transmission should be at least configurable per HARQ process via UE specific RRC signaling”, sec. 2.1, lines 18-19).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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 2-6, 11-13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over CATT , in view of WEN (WO 2020/191625 A1, hereinafter Wen).
Regarding Claim 2, CATT fails to explicitly disclose, determining, by the wireless communication device, at least one criterion for CE; and determining, by the wireless communication device, to disable the at least one HARQ process, when the transmission setting for CE is lower than the at least one criterion for CE, and determining, by the wireless communication device, to enable the at least one HARQ process, when the transmission setting for CE is higher than, equal to, or satisfying the at least one criterion for CE.
In the same field of endeavor, Wen discloses determining, by the wireless communication device, at least one criterion for CE (see e.g., “The dynamic HARQ enabling mechanism can decide whether to disable the HARQ operation with retransmission packet by packet. In addition, service data and signaling as well as the different services have different QoS requirements, the HARQ enabling/disabling can be based on data types.”, [0035]); and
determining, by the wireless communication device, to disable the at least one HARQ process, when the transmission setting for CE is lower than the at least one criterion for CE (see e.g., “The control signaling and the service with high Block Error Ratio (BLER) requirement can support the HARQ transmission and the service with low BLER requirement can disable the HARQ function.”, [0035]; Examiner’s note: low BLER corresponds to lower than at least on criterion HARQ transmission corresponds to disablement of HARQ transmission, however, limitation is considered a design choice), and determining, by the wireless communication device, to enable the at least one HARQ process, when the transmission setting for CE is higher than, equal to, or satisfying the at least one criterion for CE (see e.g., “The control signaling and the service with high Block Error Ratio (BLER) requirement can support the HARQ transmission and the service with low BLER requirement can disable the HARQ function.”, [0035]; Examiner’s note: support of HARQ transmission corresponds to enablement of HARQ transmission, however, limitation is considered a design choice).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of CATT with Wen, in order to alleviate issue of latency to the communication protocol, which may reduce the link throughput (please see Wen, para. [0003]).
Regarding Claim 3, CATT fails to explicitly disclose, determining, by the wireless communication device, at least one criterion for CE; and determining, by the wireless communication device, to disable the at least one HARQ process, when the transmission setting for CE is lower than, equal to, or satisfying the at least one criterion for CE, and determining, by the wireless communication device, to enable the at least one HARQ process, when the transmission setting for CE is higher than the at least one criterion for CE.
In the same field of endeavor, Wen discloses determining, by the wireless communication device, at least one criterion for CE (see e.g., “The dynamic HARQ enabling mechanism can decide whether to disable the HARQ operation with retransmission packet by packet. In addition, service data and signaling as well as the different services have different QoS requirements, the HARQ enabling/disabling can be based on data types.”, [0035]); and
determining, by the wireless communication device, to disable the at least one HARQ process, when the transmission setting for CE is lower than, equal to, or satisfying the at least one criterion for CE (see e.g., “The control signaling and the service with high Block Error Ratio (BLER) requirement can support the HARQ transmission and the service with low BLER requirement can disable the HARQ function.”, [0035]; Examiner’s note: low BLER corresponds to lower than at least on criterion HARQ transmission corresponds to disablement of HARQ transmission, however, limitation is considered a design choice), and
determining, by the wireless communication device, to enable the at least one HARQ process, when the transmission setting for CE is higher than the at least one criterion for CE (see e.g., “The control signaling and the service with high Block Error Ratio (BLER) requirement can support the HARQ transmission and the service with low BLER requirement can disable the HARQ function.”, [0035]; Examiner’s note: support of HARQ transmission corresponds to enablement of HARQ transmission, however, limitation is considered a design choice).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of CATT with Wen, in order to alleviate issue of latency to the communication protocol, which may reduce the link throughput (please see Wen, para. [0003]).
Regarding Claim 4, CATT fails to explicitly disclose, determining, by the wireless communication device using a mapping configuration for a plurality of candidate transmission settings, to enable or disable the at least one HARQ process according to the transmission setting for CE.
In the same field of endeavor, Wen discloses determining, by the wireless communication device using a mapping configuration for a plurality of candidate transmission settings, to enable or disable the at least one HARQ process according to the transmission setting for CE (see e.g., “The terminal device 110-1 determines 220 whether the HARQ is enabled/disabled for the logical channel on which the radio bearer is mapped to.”, [0049] and/or “means for determining whether Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) is enabled/disabled for a logical channel to which the radio bearer is mapped based on the configuration of the radio bearer; means for determining, based on the determination, enable/disable setting of HARQ for a data packet comprising the data from the logical channel”, [0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of CATT with Wen, in order to alleviate issue of latency to the communication protocol, which may reduce the link throughput (please see Wen, para. [0003]).
Regarding Claim 5, CATT fails to explicitly disclose, receiving, by the wireless communication device from a wireless communication node, a mapping configuration of candidate transmission settings, via a radio resource control (RRC) signaling
In the same field of endeavor, Wen discloses receiving, by the wireless communication device from a wireless communication node, a mapping configuration of candidate transmission settings, via a radio resource control (RRC) signaling (see e.g., “The configurations may be transmitted in downlink signaling, for example, Radio Resource Control (RRC). The HARQ for each radio bearer may be set into two states: "HARQ enabled" or "HARQ disabled."”, [0099]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of CATT with Wen, in order to alleviate issue of latency to the communication protocol, which may reduce the link throughput (please see Wen, para. [0003]).
Regarding Claim 6, CATT and Wen combined discloses, determining, by the wireless communication device using the mapping configuration, whether to disable a first HARQ process of the at least one HARQ process, according to the transmission setting for CE (see Wen e.g., “The terminal device 110-1 determines 220 whether the HARQ is enabled/disabled for the logical channel on which the radio bearer is mapped to.”, [0049] and/or “means for determining whether Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) is enabled/disabled for a logical channel to which the radio bearer is mapped based on the configuration of the radio bearer; means for determining, based on the determination, enable/disable setting of HARQ for a data packet comprising the data from the logical channel”, [0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of CATT with Wen, in order to alleviate issue of latency to the communication protocol, which may reduce the link throughput (please see Wen, para. [0003]).
Regarding Claim 11, CATT fails to explicitly disclose, receiving, by the wireless communication device from a wireless communication node, at least one criterion via a radio resource control (RRC) signaling.
In the same field of endeavor, Wen discloses receiving, by the wireless communication device from a wireless communication node, at least one criterion via a radio resource control (RRC) signaling (see e.g., “The configurations may be transmitted in downlink signaling, for example, Radio Resource Control (RRC). The HARQ for each radio bearer may be set into two states: "HARQ enabled" or "HARQ disabled."”, [0099] and/or “configuring enable/disable setting of HARQ…the available buffer of the terminal device being above a threshold…”, [0094]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of CATT with Wen, in order to alleviate issue of latency to the communication protocol, which may reduce the link throughput (please see Wen, para. [0003]).
Regarding Claim 12, CATT and Wen combined discloses, determining, by the wireless communication device, to disable a first HARQ process of the at least one HARQ process, responsive to the transmission setting for CE being lower than the at least one criterion (see e.g., “The control signaling and the service with high Block Error Ratio (BLER) requirement can support the HARQ transmission and the service with low BLER requirement can disable the HARQ function.”, [0035]; Examiner’s note: low BLER corresponds to lower than at least on criterion HARQ transmission corresponds to disablement of HARQ transmission, however, limitation is considered a design choice), and
determining, by the wireless communication device, to enable the first HARQ process of the at least one HARQ process, responsive to the transmission setting for CE being higher than, equal to, or satisfying the at least one criterion (see e.g., “The control signaling and the service with high Block Error Ratio (BLER) requirement can support the HARQ transmission and the service with low BLER requirement can disable the HARQ function.”, [0035]; Examiner’s note: support of HARQ transmission corresponds to enablement of HARQ transmission, however, limitation is considered a design choice).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of CATT with Wen, in order to alleviate issue of latency to the communication protocol, which may reduce the link throughput (please see Wen, para. [0003]).
Regarding Claim 13, CATT and Wen combined discloses, determining, by the wireless communication device, to disable a first HARQ process of the at least one HARQ process, responsive to the transmission setting for CE being lower than, equal to, or satisfying the at least one criterion (see e.g., “The control signaling and the service with high Block Error Ratio (BLER) requirement can support the HARQ transmission and the service with low BLER requirement can disable the HARQ function.”, [0035]; Examiner’s note: low BLER corresponds to lower than at least on criterion HARQ transmission corresponds to disablement of HARQ transmission, however, limitation is considered a design choice), and
determining, by the wireless communication device, to enable the first HARQ process of the at least one HARQ process, responsive to the transmission setting for CE being higher than the at least one criterion (see e.g., “The control signaling and the service with high Block Error Ratio (BLER) requirement can support the HARQ transmission and the service with low BLER requirement can disable the HARQ function.”, [0035]; Examiner’s note: support of HARQ transmission corresponds to enablement of HARQ transmission, however, limitation is considered a design choice).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of CATT with Wen, in order to alleviate issue of latency to the communication protocol, which may reduce the link throughput (please see Wen, para. [0003]).
Regarding Claim 18, CATT fails to explicitly disclose, determine at least one criterion for CE; and determine to disable the at least one HARQ process, when the transmission setting for CE is lower than the at least one criterion for CE, and determine to enable the at least one HARQ process, when the transmission setting for CE is higher than, equal to, or satisfying the at least one criterion for CE.
In the same field of endeavor, Wen discloses determine at least one criterion for CE (see e.g., “The dynamic HARQ enabling mechanism can decide whether to disable the HARQ operation with retransmission packet by packet. In addition, service data and signaling as well as the different services have different QoS requirements, the HARQ enabling/disabling can be based on data types.”, [0035]); and
determine to disable the at least one HARQ process, when the transmission setting for CE is lower than the at least one criterion for CE (see e.g., “The control signaling and the service with high Block Error Ratio (BLER) requirement can support the HARQ transmission and the service with low BLER requirement can disable the HARQ function.”, [0035]; Examiner’s note: low BLER corresponds to lower than at least on criterion HARQ transmission corresponds to disablement of HARQ transmission, however, limitation is considered a design choice), and
determine to enable the at least one HARQ process, when the transmission setting for CE is higher than, equal to, or satisfying the at least one criterion for CE (see e.g., “The control signaling and the service with high Block Error Ratio (BLER) requirement can support the HARQ transmission and the service with low BLER requirement can disable the HARQ function.”, [0035]; Examiner’s note: support of HARQ transmission corresponds to enablement of HARQ transmission, however, limitation is considered a design choice).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of CATT with Wen, in order to alleviate issue of latency to the communication protocol, which may reduce the link throughput (please see Wen, para. [0003]).
Regarding Claim 19, CATT fails to explicitly disclose, determine at least one criterion for CE; and determine to disable the at least one HARQ process, when the transmission setting for CE is lower than, equal to, or satisfying the at least one criterion for CE, and determine to enable the at least one HARQ process, when the transmission setting for CE is higher than the at least one criterion for CE.
In the same field of endeavor, Wen discloses determine at least one criterion for CE (see e.g., “The dynamic HARQ enabling mechanism can decide whether to disable the HARQ operation with retransmission packet by packet. In addition, service data and signaling as well as the different services have different QoS requirements, the HARQ enabling/disabling can be based on data types.”, [0035]); and
determine to disable the at least one HARQ process, when the transmission setting for CE is lower than, equal to, or satisfying the at least one criterion for CE (see e.g., “The control signaling and the service with high Block Error Ratio (BLER) requirement can support the HARQ transmission and the service with low BLER requirement can disable the HARQ function.”, [0035]; Examiner’s note: low BLER corresponds to lower than at least on criterion HARQ transmission corresponds to disablement of HARQ transmission, however, limitation is considered a design choice), and
determine to enable the at least one HARQ process, when the transmission setting for CE is higher than the at least one criterion for CE (see e.g., “The control signaling and the service with high Block Error Ratio (BLER) requirement can support the HARQ transmission and the service with low BLER requirement can disable the HARQ function.”, [0035]; Examiner’s note: support of HARQ transmission corresponds to enablement of HARQ transmission, however, limitation is considered a design choice).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of CATT with Wen, in order to alleviate issue of latency to the communication protocol, which may reduce the link throughput (please see Wen, para. [0003]).
Regarding Claim 20, CATT fails to explicitly disclose, determine, using a mapping configuration for a plurality of candidate transmission settings, to enable or disable the at least one HARQ process according to the transmission setting for CE.
In the same field of endeavor, Wen discloses determine, using a mapping configuration for a plurality of candidate transmission settings, to enable or disable the at least one HARQ process according to the transmission setting for CE (see e.g., “The terminal device 110-1 determines 220 whether the HARQ is enabled/disabled for the logical channel on which the radio bearer is mapped to.”, [0049] and/or “means for determining whether Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) is enabled/disabled for a logical channel to which the radio bearer is mapped based on the configuration of the radio bearer; means for determining, based on the determination, enable/disable setting of HARQ for a data packet comprising the data from the logical channel”, [0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of CATT with Wen, in order to alleviate issue of latency to the communication protocol, which may reduce the link throughput (please see Wen, para. [0003]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over CATT , in view of Hoglund et al. (US 2021/0084639 A1, hereinafter Hoglund).
Regarding Claim 9, CATT fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the transmission setting for CE comprises one of CE level 0, CE level 1, CE level 2, or CE level 3.
In the same field of endeavor, Hoglund discloses wherein the transmission setting for CE comprises one of CE level 0, CE level 1, CE level 2, or CE level 3 (see e.g., “The NB-IoT radio interface has therefore been designed with three separate NPRACH radio resources that are each associated with a coverage range and a set of repetitions. That is, coverage enhancement (CE) levels 0,1, and 2 are supported, unlike eMTC which supports 4.”, [0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of CATT with Hoglund, in order to extend the coverage and achieve coverage in the most demanding situations by repeated transmission with different CE levels (please see Hoglund, para. [0055]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over CATT , in view of FU et al. (US 2022/0337350 A1, hereinafter Fu).
Regarding Claim 16, CATT fails to explicitly disclose, determining, by the wireless communication device, that there is a conflict on whether to disable the at least one HARQ process, between (i) the transmission setting of CE, and (ii) the signaling from the wireless communication node; and resolving, by the wireless communication device, the conflict according to the priority.
In the same field of endeavor, Fu discloses determining, by the wireless communication device, that there is a conflict on whether to disable the at least one HARQ process, between (i) the transmission setting of CE, and (ii) the signaling from the wireless communication node (see e.g., “When there are at least two resources in conflict in the terminal device, and such resources in conflict correspond to the HARQ process in the enable state and the HARQ process in the disable state respectively. If the terminal device still selects the resource to be preferentially transmitted according to the present rules (for example, when CG-DG conflict occurs, DG resource is selected for transmission preferentially), a HARQ process in the enable state may be selected for the service sensitive to time delay”, [0064] and/or “the first terminal may be a terminal device, and the second device may be a network device”, [0070]); and
resolving, by the wireless communication device, the conflict according to the priority (see e.g., “…or it is agreed that the selection priority of the HARQ process in the disable state is higher than the selection priority of the HARQ process in the enable state, then the terminal device preferentially selects the HARQ process in the disable state”, [0110]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of CATT with Fu, in order to ensure a reliable data transmission adopting hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) mechanism with configuration of enable/disable HARQ function (please see Fu, para. [0047] and [0061]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARID SEYEDVOSOGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-9679. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Anthony S. Addy can be reached at 5712727795. 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.
/FARID SEYEDVOSOGHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2645