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 .
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 11/30/2025. The amendment has been entered and considered.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 1–20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Khoshnevisan et al. (US 2021/0029641 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 2024/0089985 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Khoshnevisan teaches a method:
for detecting missing downlink control information (DCI), applied to user equipment (UE), comprising: determining that at least one of multiple scenarios (message reception failure) is met based on modem layer information (Khoshnevisan [0153]–[0154], system 700 / device 705) Khoshnevisan teaches a method for detecting missing DCI applied to a UE with DRX/HARQ context and explicit control-flow timing (K1/RTT) used to judge missing-DCI conditions and keep the UE awake long enough to react (see timing flows labeled “Timer 450-a, K1, DAI, NFI, Feedback Report” on the DCI/PDSCH timelines; UE block shows Processor 750 / Memory 715 / Transceiver / Timer Manager 730 in Fig. 7). These flows and timers provide the scenario determination that initiates missing-DCI handling (K1-driven feedback windows; non-arrival implies a miss), and the UE’s manager modules implement the indicator/response logic paths.
However, Khoshnevisan does not explicitly teach generating the indicator based on (i) DAI/HARQ-ID continuity checks, (ii) traffic-trend thresholding, or (iii) a PDCCH SNR threshold at the lowest aggregation level. teaches those objective criteria and thresholds: Li discloses that the UE monitors DAI values and HARQ process IDs across successive DCIs, and a non-contiguous sequence indicates a missing DCI (Li [0061]– [0062], [0069]– [0071], [0074]– [0076], [0080], Fig. 8, Fig.9). Li further describes that when traffic intensity exceeds a first threshold in previous intervals, drops below a second threshold in the current interval, and HARQ IDs are not contiguous, the UE infers a missing control message. In addition, Li teaches that the UE evaluates PDCCH SNR against a threshold at the lowest aggregation level (AL) and, if decoding is not possible below this threshold, the condition is treated as a missing-DCI event
generating a DCI-missing indicator with one of multiple criteria according to the at least one scenario (Khoshnevisan [0021], [0024]– [0031], Fig. 6, Fig. 11, Fig. 12) Khoshnevisan teaches generating a DCI-missing indicator after PDCCH monitoring by applying criteria such as timer expiration, absence of an expected DCI, or LBT blocking. This shows that indicator generation is explicitly tied to objective modem-layer conditions, ensuring the UE only signals a missing DCI when those criteria are met.
However, Khoshnevisan does not explicitly teach generating the indicator based on NDI toggle with RV≠0 or reserved MCS, upper-layer packet missing, DAI/HARQ continuity, traffic-trend thresholds, or a PDCCH SNR threshold at the lowest aggregation level (Li [0050]– [0051], [0061]– [0062], [0069]– [0071], [0074]– [0076], [0080]– [0081], Fig. 2, Fig. 5, Fig. 8, Fig. 9). Li provides explicit, parameterized modem-layer conditions for generating the DCI-missing indicator, rather than relying only on timer expiration or decode failure.
performing dynamic power mode control or throughput evaluation according to the DCI-missing indicator (Khoshnevisan [0020]– [0021], [0030], Fig. 6, Fig. 11): Khoshnevisan describes that when the UE detects a missing DCI, the monitoring timer is deactivated and the UE enters a low-power mode or suspends further PDCCH monitoring, reducing energy consumption; conversely, the UE may maintain monitoring when control information is expected, thereby directly tying power-mode control to the missing-DCI decision. Khoshnevisan also notes that throughput and retransmission handling are adjusted when the UE concludes a DCI is missing, demonstrating throughput evaluation linked to the indicator.
However, Khoshnevisan does not explicitly teach power/throughput responses driven by criteria such as upper-layer packet loss, DAI/HARQ continuity, traffic thresholds, or explicit PDCCH SNR checks. (Li [0071], [0074]– [0076], [0080]– [0081], Fig. 5, Fig. 8, Fig. 9). Li teaches that when the upper layer detects a missing packet, when DAI or HARQ IDs are not contiguous, when traffic intensity crosses thresholds, or when PDCCH SNR falls below the lowest AL threshold, the UE not only generates a missing-DCI indicator but also adjusts power state and throughput behavior.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Li’s explicit criteria (NDI toggle with RV≠0 or reserved MCS, upper-layer packet loss, DAI/HARQ continuity, traffic thresholds, and PDCCH SNR at lowest AL) with Khoshnevisan’s timer- and monitoring-based framework to create a more reliable multi-criteria detection scheme. This predictable integration reduces false positives, improves recovery latency, and enables more efficient power-mode and throughput control, representing a routine optimization of known UE control-channel monitoring techniques.
Regarding claim 2, Khoshnevisan teaches the method as claimed in claim 1:
wherein the multiple criteria comprise a first criterion, a second criterion, and a third criterion (Khoshnevisan [0020]– [0021], [0024]– [0026], [0030], Fig. 11, Fig. 12) Khoshnevisan explains that the first criterion corresponds to expiration of an active monitoring timer without DCI reception; a second criterion corresponds to absence of an expected second DCI within a monitoring window; and a third criterion corresponds to LBT-related blocking that prevents feedback. Thus, timer expiration is the most direct indicator of missing DCI, while signaling absence and LBT failure are secondary causes that still trigger missing-DCI behavior—teaching first/second/third criteria with an implied reliability ranking.
wherein a probability of missing DCI using the DCI-missing indicator meeting the first criterion is higher than that that using the DCI-missing indicator meeting the second criterion (Khoshnevisan [0009]– [0010], [0020]– [0021], [0024]– [0026], Fig. 10, Fig. 11) When the timer expires without receiving DCI, the UE transitions (e.g., low-power entry or retransmission logic), reflecting a strong presumption of DCI loss. By contrast, when a second DCI does not arrive after a (prior) indication, the UE continues monitoring rather than immediately acting, implying a lower likelihood of actual DCI loss than the timer-expiration case.
and wherein the probability of missing DCI using the DCI-missing indicator meeting the second criterion is higher than that using the DCI-missing indicator meeting the third criterion (Khoshnevisan [0009]– [0010], [0024]– [0026], [0030], Fig. 12) Failure of a second expected DCI within the monitoring window supports an inference of possible DCI loss after prolonged silence, whereas LBT failure merely prevents feedback transmission and is not directly linked to DCI reception, indicating a lower likelihood of missing DCI than the second-criterion case.
However, Khoshnevisan does not explicitly teach formalizing this probability ordering with quantitative thresholds or parameterized measures. (Li [0061]– [0062], [0069]– [0071], [0074]– [0076], [0080], Fig. 8, Fig. 9) Li teaches explicit ranking: the UE evaluates PDCCH SNR against a decoding threshold at the lowest aggregation level, where falling below the threshold represents the strongest probability of a missing DCI. Li further explains that DAI/HARQ continuity failures provide a higher-confidence indicator than traffic-intensity shifts with HARQ non-contiguity, which are treated as weaker, lower-confidence triggers.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to Integrate Li’s explicit PDCCH quality thresholds into Khoshnevisan’s multi-criterion missing-DCI policy to parameterize and rank the timer/second DCI/LBT criteria, predictably reducing false ACK/NACK and improving recovery latency and power-mode control.
Regarding claim 3, Khoshnevisan teaches the method of Claim 1,
wherein the step of determining that at least one of the scenarios is met based on modem-layer information includes interpreting NDI, RV, and MCS fields of the DCI. (Khoshnevisan [0024]– [0026], Fig. 11, Fig. 12) Khoshnevisan explains that the UE monitors the NDI bit to distinguish between new transmissions and retransmissions, and tracks redundancy version (RV) values and modulation and coding scheme (MCS) indices as part of HARQ process management. These disclosures show the UE relies on NDI, RV, and MCS values as modem-layer information to determine HARQ state and detect anomalies.
However, Khoshnevisan does not explicitly teach using the specific condition where NDI toggles while RV ≠ 0 or a reserved MCS index is used as the trigger for a missing-DCI determination. Li [0050]– [0051], Fig. 2) Li discloses that when the NDI bit toggles in the DCI but the redundancy version is nonzero, or when reserved MCS indices indicate retransmission, the UE treats this mismatch as evidence of a missing control message.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Li’s explicit NDI/RV/MCS anomaly condition with Khoshnevisan’s HARQ monitoring framework to provide a clearer trigger for missing-DCI detection. This integration predictably improves reliability by allowing the UE to detect lost control messages in retransmission contexts, reducing false ACK/NACK outcomes and enhancing throughput consistency.
Regarding claim 4, Khoshnevisan teaches the method of Claim 3,
wherein the step of generating the DCI-missing indicator with one of multiple criteria according to the at least one scenario comprises generating the indicator based on modem-layer HARQ conditions. (Khoshnevisan [0024]– [0026], Fig. 11, Fig. 12) Khoshnevisan explains that when the UE monitors DCI fields such as NDI, RV, and MCS, it uses these fields to manage HARQ processes and decide whether to generate feedback or retransmission requests. These disclosures show that Khoshnevisan ties indicator generation to conditions involving HARQ-related parameters.
However, Khoshnevisan does not explicitly teach generating the DCI-missing indicator specifically when the NDI toggles while the RV is not equal to zero or a reserved MCS index is used. (Li [0050]– [0051], Fig. 2) Li teaches this explicit scenario: Li discloses that when the NDI bit toggles in the DCI but the redundancy version is nonzero, or when reserved MCS indices indicate retransmission, the UE sets a high-confidence DCI-missing indicator to flag the lost control message.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Li’s explicit NDI-toggle with RV≠0 or reserved MCS condition into Khoshnevisan’s indicator-generation framework to ensure that anomalous HARQ signaling directly triggers a missing-DCI flag. This predictable integration strengthens the UE’s ability to detect lost control messages in retransmission cases, improving link reliability and reducing wasted retransmission attempts.
Regarding claim 5, Khoshnevisan teaches the method as claimed in claim 1:
Thus, Khoshnevisan does not explicitly teach wherein the step of determining that at least one of the scenarios is met based on the modem layer information comprises: determining that an upper layer of the UE experiences a package missing.
Similar to the system of Khoshnevisan, Li teaches wherein the step of determining that at least one of the scenarios is met based on the modem layer information comprises: determining that an upper layer of the UE experiences a package missing (Li [0071], [0074] – [0076], [0080], Fig. 9). Li describes the UE tracking discrepancies between expected and received data at the upper layer (e.g., undelivered PDCP SDUs) and using that missing-packet event as a scenario trigger; the modem layer then evaluates and handles the missing-DCI condition accordingly
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Li’s upper-layer packet-loss trigger into Khoshnevisan’s timer/monitoring workflow to detect missing DCI sooner and initiate recovery more reliably, reducing false ACK/NACK and unnecessary monitoring.
Regarding claim 6, Khoshnevisan teaches the method of Claim 5,
wherein the step of determining that at least one of the scenarios is met based on modem-layer information includes evaluating physical-layer error performance such as decoding failures on the PDSCH. (Khoshnevisan [0024]– [0026], Fig. 11, Fig. 12) Khoshnevisan explains that the UE monitors HARQ retransmissions and decoding outcomes at the physical layer to decide whether data was correctly received, linking physical-layer results to higher-layer delivery. These disclosures show the UE considers modem-layer performance metrics in conjunction with missing DCI detection.
However, Khoshnevisan does not explicitly teach the specific condition where the block error rate (BLER) of the PDSCH is lower than a threshold after the upper layer of the UE experiences a packet missing. (Li [0071], [0074]– [0076], [0080], Fig. 9) Li teaches this condition: Li discloses that after the upper layer detects missing packets, the UE checks whether the PDSCH BLER is below a set threshold, and if so, the mismatch indicates a missing control message rather than poor channel quality.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Li’s BLER-threshold check with Khoshnevisan’s HARQ/monitoring framework to more reliably distinguish between missing DCIs and channel errors. This predictable improvement reduces unnecessary retransmissions and improves UE efficiency.
Regarding claim 7, Khoshnevisan teaches the method as claimed in claim 5,
Khoshnevisan provides the UE missing-DCI detection framework—monitoring/timer-based criteria, indicator generation, and power-mode control.
Thus, Khoshnevisan does not explicitly teach determining that a count of a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) retransmission has not reached an upper limit after determining that the upper layer of the UE experiences a packet missing.”
Li teaches “the method as claimed in claim 5, wherein the step of determining that at least one of the scenarios is met based on the modem-layer information further comprises: determining that a count of a PDSCH retransmission has not reached an upper limit after determining that the upper layer of the UE experiences a packet missing” (Li [0044]– [0045], [0069]– [0071], Fig. 8). Li explains that PDSCH retransmissions continue until a maximum number is reached; therefore, when the retransmission count has not reached the upper limit following the upper-layer packet-missing event (see Claim 5), the UE treats the condition as ongoing retransmission activity, satisfying the claimed scenario.
One of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate Li’s explicit retransmission-count logic into Khoshnevisan’s missing-DCI workflow to distinguish control-information loss from transmission exhaustion, improving detection reliability and recovery timing.
Regarding claim 8, Khoshnevisan teaches the method of Claim 5,
by providing the general UE missing-DCI detection framework—monitoring/timer-based criteria, indicator generation, and power-mode control. (Khoshnevisan [0020]– [0021], [0024]– [0026], [0030], Fig. 6, Fig. 11, Fig. 12) Khoshnevisan discloses that the UE monitors the PDCCH and applies timer-based criteria such as expiration of a monitoring window, absence of an expected DCI, and blocking events to decide a missing-DCI condition.
However, Khoshnevisan does not explicitly teach generating the DCI-missing indicator specifically when the upper layer of the UE experiences a packet missing. (Li [0071], [0074]– [0076], [0080], Fig. 9) Li teaches this condition: Li discloses that after the UE’s upper layer detects a missing packet (e.g., undelivered PDCP SDUs), the modem layer responds by generating a DCI-missing indicator to flag the lost control information. Li explains that this cross-layer approach ensures that when the upper layer sees missing data while physical-layer error rates remain acceptable, the system identifies the problem as a missing control message and triggers indicator generation accordingly.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Li’s upper-layer packet-loss criterion into Khoshnevisan’s detection framework to improve missing-DCI accuracy, allowing the UE to detect lost control information sooner and initiate recovery reliably, thereby reducing false ACK/NACKs and unnecessary monitoring.
Regarding claim 9, Khoshnevisan teaches the method of Claim 1,
by providing the UE framework for missing-DCI detection through monitoring the PDCCH, applying timer-based criteria, and generating indicators. (Khoshnevisan [0020]– [0021], [0024]– [0026], [0030], Fig. 6, Fig. 11, Fig. 12) Khoshnevisan discloses that the UE monitors the PDCCH using timer-based criteria, absence of expected DCIs, and blocking events to detect missing control information, establishing the general framework for missing-DCI detection and indicator generation.
However, Khoshnevisan does not explicitly teach determining that a downlink assignment index (DAI) in the DCI is not contiguous as a scenario trigger. (Li [0061]– [0062], [0069]– [0071], Fig. 8) Li teaches this condition: Li discloses that the UE monitors DAI values across successive DCIs and, when the DAI sequence is non-contiguous, it indicates a missing DCI. Li explains that this discontinuity signals that one or more control messages were lost, prompting the UE to treat it as a missing-DCI event.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Li’s DAI-continuity criterion into Khoshnevisan’s missing-DCI detection framework to provide a concrete modem-layer check, thereby improving detection reliability and reducing false alarms.
Regarding claim 10, Khoshnevisan teaches the method as claimed in claim 9:
Khoshnevisan does not teach “generating the DCI-missing indicator with a first criterion according to a scenario marked by the DAI in the DCI not being contiguous.” (Khoshnevisan [0026], Fig. 12). While Khoshnevisan addresses control-channel decode failures and UE monitoring behavior, it does not disclose using DAI non-contiguity as the first criterion for generating a DCI-missing indicator.
Li teaches “the method as claimed in claim 9, wherein the step of generating the DCI-missing indicator with one of multiple criteria according to the at least one scenario comprises: generating the DCI-missing indicator with a first criterion according to a scenario marked by the DAI in the DCI not being contiguous” (Li [0061]– [0062], [0069]– [0071], Fig. 8). Li has the UE monitor DAI continuity across successive DCI transmissions and treats DAI non-continuity as a condition that triggers missing-DCI indication/feedback to the base station, satisfying the claim’s “first criterion.”
One of ordinary skill in the art would combine Li’s DAI-sequence continuity check with Khoshnevisan’s decode-monitoring/timer workflow to detect missed DCI sooner, reduce false ACK/NACK, and speed recovery— a predictable, routine control-plane reliability improvement.
Regarding claim 11, Khoshnevisan teaches the method as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the step of determining that at least one of the scenarios is met based on the modem layer information comprises: determining that a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) measured at a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) is lower than a threshold below which the PDCCH cannot be decoded successfully at a lowest aggregation level (AL). (Khoshnevisan [0020], [0029]– [0031], Fig. 6); Khoshnevisan teaches a decode-failure workflow (UE observes repeated DCI decoding failures and suspends PDCCH monitoring), reflecting a modem-layer decision that control-channel decoding is unsuccessful
However, Khoshnevisan does not teach determining that a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is measured or compared against a threshold for successful decoding at the lowest aggregation level. (Li [0071], [0081]) Li supplements this by disclosing that control channel reception quality, including PDCCH decoding, is evaluated using signal quality metrics such as SNR. When the measured PDCCH SNR is below the threshold, the UE treats the condition as a trigger/criterion for missing-DCI handling, providing the explicit SNR-threshold comparison.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Li’s explicit SNR-threshold test into Khoshnevisan’s decode-failure workflow to obtain an objective, parameterized decision rule that reduces false positives and improves robustness under variable channel conditions. This predictable combination enhances DCI detection reliability and enables consistent behavior across devices and deployments.
Regarding claim 12, Khoshnevisan provides the general missing-DCI detection
and indicator-generation framework, including timer-based monitoring and decode-failure handling. (Khoshnevisan [0020]– [0021], [0029]– [0031], Fig. 6, Fig. 11) Khoshnevisan discloses that the UE monitors the PDCCH and applies timer-based monitoring and decode-failure handling to detect missing DCIs, providing the general framework for multi-criteria detection and indicator generation.
However, Khoshnevisan does not explicitly teach generating the DCI-missing indicator with a second criterion according to a scenario marked by the SNR measured at the PDCCH being lower than the threshold. (Li [0071], [0081]) Li teaches this condition: Li discloses that the UE evaluates PDCCH SNR against a threshold (e.g., detectability at the lowest aggregation level) and, when the measured SNR is below the threshold, the UE treats the condition as the second criterion for a missing-DCI decision. Li explains that this quality-metric threshold ties the scenario directly to PDCCH decodability and triggers generation of the DCI-missing indicator.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Li’s explicit SNR-threshold test into Khoshnevisan’s decode-monitoring workflow to provide an objective, parameterized decision rule that reduces false positives and improves reliability under varying channel conditions.
Regarding claim 13, Khoshnevisan teaches the method of Claim 1,
by providing the general missing-DCI detection framework based on modem-layer monitoring, timers, and indicator generation. (Khoshnevisan [0020]– [0021], [0024]– [0026], [0030], Fig. 6, Fig. 11, Fig. 12) Khoshnevisan discloses that the UE monitors the PDCCH using timers, monitoring windows, and channel-access conditions to detect missing DCIs and generate corresponding indicators, establishing the general framework for multi-criteria detection.
However, Khoshnevisan does not explicitly teach determining that traffic intensity exceeds a first threshold in prior time intervals, drops below a second threshold in a current time interval, and that HARQ IDs are not contiguous in the current time interval. (Li [0074]– [0076], [0080], Fig. 9) Li teaches this composite condition: Li discloses that the UE monitors traffic intensity over multiple intervals, compares the values against first and second thresholds, and evaluates HARQ process ID continuity, treating non-contiguity together with the abnormal traffic pattern as evidence of a missing DCI. Li explains that combining threshold-based traffic monitoring with HARQ sequence checks provides a robust scenario definition for missing-DCI detection.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Li’s traffic-threshold and HARQ-continuity logic into Khoshnevisan’s detection framework to more accurately detect control-channel loss under dynamic traffic conditions, thereby reducing false alarms and improving recovery timing.
Regarding claim 14, Khoshnevisan provides the general missing-DCI detection
framework, including monitoring, timer-based criteria, and indicator generation. (Khoshnevisan [0020]– [0021], [0024]– [0026], [0030], Fig. 6, Fig. 11, Fig. 12) Khoshnevisan discloses that the UE monitors the PDCCH using timers, monitoring windows, and channel-access conditions to detect missing DCIs and generate indicators, providing the general framework for multi-criteria detection.
However, Khoshnevisan does not explicitly teach generating the DCI-missing indicator with a third criterion according to a scenario marked by traffic intensity exceeding a first threshold in previous intervals, dropping below a second threshold in the current interval, and HARQ IDs not being contiguous in the current interval. (Li [0074]– [0076], [0080], Fig. 9) Li teaches this condition: Li discloses that the UE identifies a pattern of high traffic load followed by a sudden drop and simultaneously monitors HARQ ID sequences for continuity. When these conditions co-occur, the UE infers a missing DCI and generates the DCI-missing indicator based on this composite scenario.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Li’s composite traffic/HARQ criterion into Khoshnevisan’s multi-criteria policy to strengthen missing-DCI detection under dynamic traffic conditions, thereby improving reliability and reducing false alarms.
Regarding claim 15, Khoshnevisan teaches user equipment (UE),
comprising: a processor configured to determine that at least one of multiple scenarios is met based on modem-layer information, generate a DCI-missing indicator with one of multiple criteria according to the at least one scenario, and perform dynamic power mode control or throughput evaluation according to the DCI-missing indicator. (Khoshnevisan [0020]– [0031], Fig. 6, Fig. 11, Fig. 12) Khoshnevisan discloses a UE architecture where a processor monitors control signaling to detect missing DCI events based on modem-layer triggers such as timer expiration, feedback inactivity, or channel access failure. Upon detection, the processor generates a DCI-missing condition based on these criteria and initiates low-power state transitions.
However, Khoshnevisan does not explicitly teach the processor determining DCI-missing indicators based on additional criteria such as NDI toggle with RV≠0 or reserved MCS, upper-layer packet missing, DAI/HARQ non-contiguity, traffic thresholds, or PDCCH SNR thresholds. (Li [0050]–[0051], Fig. 2); Li ( teaches these objective criteria: Li discloses that (i) when NDI toggles with RV≠0 or reserved MCS, the UE flags a missing control message ; (ii) when the upper layer experiences a packet missing, the UE generates a DCI-missing indicator (Li [0071], [0074]–[0076], [0080], Fig. 9); (iii) when DAI or HARQ IDs are not contiguous, the UE triggers a missing-DCI condition (Li [0061]–[0062], [0069]–[0071], Fig. 8); and (iv) when PDCCH SNR is below a threshold at the lowest aggregation level, the UE treats the condition as a missing-DCI event (Li [0071], [0081], Fig. 5).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Li’s objective criteria into Khoshnevisan’s UE processor framework to provide a more reliable multi-criteria apparatus, improving missing-DCI detection, reducing false ACK/NACK, and enabling robust power and throughput control across deployments.
Regarding claim 16, Khoshnevisan teaches the UE as claimed in claim 15,
wherein the multiple criteria comprise a first criterion, a second criterion, and a third criterion. (Khoshnevisan [0024]– [0031], Fig. 6, Fig. 12) Khoshnevisan discloses that the UE applies different detection criteria for identifying missing DCI, including timer expiration, LBT failure, and NFI mismatch. These criteria vary in severity and likelihood of indicating true DCI loss, with timer-based expiration reflecting the most direct loss condition, while the others may result from secondary or transient causes. This ordered severity reflects an implied ranked probability structure among the criteria.
However, Khoshnevisan does not explicitly teach formalizing the probability ordering through quantitative thresholds or parameterized quality measures. (Li [0061]– [0062], [0069]– [0071], [0074]– [0076], [0080]– [0081], Fig. 5, Fig. 8, Fig. 9) Li teaches this by ranking criteria—PDCCH SNR thresholds at the lowest AL as strongest, DAI/HARQ continuity failures as mid-level, and traffic-intensity thresholds with HARQ non-contiguity as weakest—providing an explicit reliability ordering.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Li’s parameterized probability ordering with Khoshnevisan’s existing criteria to improve detection accuracy, reduce false positives, and enable consistent UE decision-making across deployments.
Regarding claim 17, Khoshnevisan teaches the UE as claimed in claim 15,
wherein the processor evaluates modem-layer fields in the DCI such as the NDI bit, redundancy version (RV), and MCS index to manage HARQ processes. (Khoshnevisan [0024]– [0026], Fig. 11, Fig. 12) Khoshnevisan explains that the UE monitors the NDI bit to distinguish between new transmissions and retransmissions and tracks RV and MCS values to determine coding and retransmission parameters, showing that these fields form part of the modem-layer decision framework.
However, Khoshnevisan does not explicitly teach the specific scenario where the NDI toggles and the RV is not equal to zero or a reserved MCS index is used. (Li [0050]– [0051], Fig. 2) Li teaches this condition: Li discloses that when the NDI toggles, but the RV indicates retransmission (RV≠0) or when a reserved MCS index is used, the processor treats this as evidence of a missing DCI and triggers the corresponding detection logic.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Li’s explicit NDI/RV/MCS anomaly condition into Khoshnevisan’s HARQ management framework to improve detection of lost DCIs in retransmission cases, thereby enhancing reliability and reducing erroneous HARQ operation.
Regarding claim 18, Khoshnevisan teaches the UE as claimed in claim 15,
providing a processor that monitors modem-layer control signaling, applies timer-based criteria, and generates missing-DCI indicators. (Khoshnevisan [0020]– [0026], [0030], Fig. 6, Fig. 11, Fig. 12) Khoshnevisan discloses a UE architecture where the processor monitors control signaling using timers, monitoring windows, and channel-access conditions to detect missing DCIs and generate indicators.
However, Khoshnevisan does not explicitly teach the processor determining that an upper layer experiences a packet missing or that a downlink assignment index (DAI) in the DCI is not contiguous. (Li [0061]– [0062], [0069]– [0071], [0074]– [0076], [0080], Fig. 8, Fig. 9) Li teaches these conditions: Li discloses that when the upper layer detects a missing packet (e.g., undelivered PDCP SDU) or when the DAI sequence across successive DCIs is non-contiguous, the UE treats these scenarios as evidence of a missing DCI and triggers the indicator accordingly.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Li’s explicit packet-loss and DAI-continuity checks into Khoshnevisan’s multi-criteria UE framework to improve robustness of missing-DCI detection, thereby reducing false ACK/NACKs and enhancing reliability in dynamic traffic conditions.
Regarding claim 19, Khoshnevisan teaches the UE as claimed in claim 15,
wherein the scenarios comprise the processor determining that a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) measured at the PDCCH is lower than a threshold below which the PDCCH cannot be decoded successfully at the lowest aggregation level (AL). (Khoshnevisan [0020], [0029]– [0031], Fig. 6) Khoshnevisan discloses a decode-failure outcome where the UE, after repeated decoding failures, enters low-power mode or suspends PDCCH monitoring, reflecting modem-layer handling of unsuccessful decoding.
However, Khoshnevisan does not explicitly teach an explicit SNR threshold comparison at the lowest AL. (Li [0071], [0081]) Li teaches this condition: Li discloses evaluating PDCCH SNR against a threshold (e.g., detectability at the lowest AL) and treating the below-threshold condition as a trigger for missing-DCI handling.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Li’s explicit SNR-threshold test into Khoshnevisan’s decode-failure workflow to parameterize the scenario, reduce false positives, and improve both recovery timing and power-mode decisions.
Regarding claim 20, Khoshnevisan teaches the UE as claimed in claim 15,
providing the general processor framework for missing-DCI detection using modem-layer monitoring, timers, and indicator generation. (Khoshnevisan [0020]– [0026], [0030], Fig. 6, Fig. 11, Fig. 12) Khoshnevisan discloses a UE processor that monitors the PDCCH using timers, monitoring windows, and channel-access conditions to detect missing DCIs and generate indicators.
However, Khoshnevisan does not explicitly teach the processor determining that traffic intensity exceeds a first threshold during previous time intervals, drops below a second threshold in the current interval, and HARQ IDs are not contiguous during the current interval. (Li [0074]– [0076], [0080], Fig. 9) Li teaches this condition: Li discloses that the UE evaluates traffic trends across intervals against first and second thresholds and simultaneously checks HARQ ID continuity, treating a high-to-low traffic shift plus non-contiguous HARQ IDs as a composite scenario for missing-DCI detection.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Li’s composite traffic/HARQ criterion into Khoshnevisan’s multi-criteria UE framework to detect control-message loss more accurately under variable traffic conditions, thereby improving reliability and reducing false alarms.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues the prior art does not teach performing a dynamic power mode control or throughput evaluation according to the DCI-missing indicator because Khoshnevisan only teaches the UE can enter low-power mode based on the operation of a timer, but the “feedback message” generated by the UE still needs to be transmit to the base station and thus the UE needs to wait for the DCI from the base station to perform subsequent actions. Applicant further argues Khoshnevisan assumes DCI can be decoded during DCI and does not address scenarios where DCIs are missing since the DCI monitoring is used solely for handling HARQ for DRX, not detecting missing DCIs.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. At the outset, the Examiner notes the “DCI-missing indicator” is not defined well to expressly show that DCI are missing. In other words, there is nothing that prevents the DCI-missing indicator from having a value proving “no DCI are missing”, thus the claims are not limited in scope to only reflect DCI are actually missing. The performing step is also not limited in scope to being only performed when DCI is actually missing. The DCI-missing indicator could indicate “no DCI is missing” thus the dynamic power mode would be performed regardless of DCI actually missing or not. The Examiner suggest defining exactly what information is in the DCI-missing indicator and how exactly that information impacts the dynamic power mode control. Such clarification would overcome the cited art of record.
Khoshnevisan teaches timers associated with entering low power modes (Paragraphs 20-21). Khoshnevisan further teaches, Figure 3B, that a DCI (310-d) may not be received (i.e. missing). A timer (305-b) may expire and the UE cycles to low power mode (i.e. performing dynamic power mode control). This cycling to the lower power mode is tied to the DCI-missing indicator as claimed. Without further definition to what the DCI-missing indicator is or how the information in the DCI-missing indicator is tied to the dynamic power control mode, this interpretation is proper.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON M RENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm EST.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (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 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.
/BRANDON M RENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights