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 .
Status of the Application
This Office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed June 24, 2026. Claims 1-15 and 18-20 have been amended. No claims have been canceled, and no claims have been added. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined herein. Applicant’s amendment of independent claims 1, 7, and 15 necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. See MPEP 706.07(a). Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the cited references have not been shown to disclose “obtain an indication to select between transmitting a gap-to-capacity metric and transmitting a redundancy-with-capacity metric associated with a multiple incremental redundancy scheme (MIRS) based at least in part on a value of a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) bit” (Remarks, page 9). This argument is addressed by the new grounds of rejection set forth below, which are directed to the amended claim language. As set forth in the rejections below, Andgart expressly conditions which feedback content is transmitted on the decoding outcome conveyed by the acknowledgement value, teaching that upon successful decoding the UE transmits an ACK together with an index serving as a decoding margin, and that otherwise the UE transmits a NACK, and Andgart together with Yang teaches network signaling that enables and designates the richer feedback format. In the combination set forth below, the enabling indication causes the selection between transmitting Kutz’s gap to capacity metric and transmitting Andgart’s decoding margin report to be based on the value of the HARQ bit.
Applicant further argues that “XIONG and ALKHODER do not disclose each and every feature recited in amended independent claims 1, 7, and 15, when viewed individually or in combination with KUTZ, YANG, and ANDGART” (Remarks, page 10). This argument is not persuasive because the rejections of the independent claims set forth below do not rely on Xiong or Alkhoder; the independent claims are rejected over the combination of Kutz, Yang, and Andgart, and Xiong and Alkhoder are applied only against dependent claims for the additional features they are cited for. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant’s remaining assertion that the dependent claims are patentable relies on the asserted patentability of independent claims 1, 7, and 15, which remain rejected for the reasons set forth below, and on their additional features, which are addressed claim by claim below.
Applicant’s amendment of independent claims 1, 7, and 15 to recite obtaining an indication to select between transmitting a gap-to-capacity metric and transmitting a redundancy-with-capacity metric, or between transmitting feedback to operate the MIRS and transmitting a gap-to-capacity metric, based at least in part on a value of the HARQ bit, and to recite the corresponding outcome-conditioned transmissions, necessitated the new grounds of rejection set forth below. The new grounds apply Andgart to claims 1-3 and 7-14 for the first time and rely on passages of Kutz, Yang, and Andgart not previously applied, including Andgart paragraphs [0094], [0102], and [0103]. Accordingly, the rejections below constitute new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, and this action is properly made final.
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 pre-AIA 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, 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 negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutz (US 2022/0368387 A1) in view of Yang (US 2021/0258102 A1) and further in view of Andgart (US 2021/0211242 A1).
Regarding claim 1, (Currently Amended) Kutz discloses: A user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more memories comprising instructions executable by the one or more processors to cause the UE to: because Kutz teaches a communications device that may be a UE, having a processing system with one or more processors coupled to a memory holding executable instructions: (Kutz, para [0100] “communication device 1000 may be a user equipment (UE) 104”; Kutz, para [0102] “Processing system 1002 includes one or more processors 1020 coupled to a computer-readable medium/memory 1020 via a bus 1006.”; Kutz, para [0147] “a memory comprising executable instructions; one or more processors configured to execute the executable instructions and cause the apparatus to perform a method”).
Moreover, Kutz discloses: transmit the HARQ bit; and the UE transmitting the HARQ acknowledgement value: (Kutz, para [0096] “The UE may send a negative acknowledgment (NACK) (and a gap to capacity) to the BS, in response to the decoding failure”).
In addition, Kutz discloses: selectively transmit the gap-to-capacity metric associated with the MIRS in accordance with the value of the HARQ bit being a HARQ negative acknowledgement (NACK), because Kutz teaches the failure branch, in which the gap to capacity metric is transmitted together with the negative acknowledgement: (Kutz, para [0096] “The UE may send a negative acknowledgment (NACK) (and a gap to capacity) to the BS, in response to the decoding failure”; Kutz, para [0097] “The BS may sends (thin) retransmissions of the first MIMO transmission and the second MIMO transmission, in response to the NACK.”).
Although Kutz teaches that the UE sends a negative acknowledgement together with a gap to capacity metric upon decoding failure and participates in MIRS based coding rate adaptation: (Kutz, para [0096]; Kutz, para [0097]), Kutz does not explicitly disclose that the UE obtains an indication by which the report it transmits is selected.
However, Kutz in view of Yang discloses obtain an indication to select between transmitting a gap-to-capacity metric and transmitting because Yang teaches that the network designates, by downlink control information or radio resource control signaling carried with the downlink transmission, which of two feedback formats the UE is to transmit for that transmission, which is the indication on which the UE's selection between the two reports is made (Yang, para [0067], “a downlink control information (DCI) message or radio resource control (RRC) information associated with a respective downlink transmission may indicate whether feedback associated with the downlink transmission is super-ACK feedback or HARQ feedback”; Yang, para [0049], “a feedback message of the first type includes ACK/NACK information, and a feedback message of the second type includes ACK/NACK information and CQI”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the UE of Kutz obtain, in the manner Yang teaches, a network indication designating which feedback the UE is to return for a given downlink transmission, because Kutz already provides for feedback that the network uses to adapt the coding rate and Yang teaches signaling by which the network selects among feedback formats per downlink transmission, so that combining them yields no more than the predictable result of a UE told which of its available reports to send, with a reasonable expectation of success because both references address uplink feedback formatting for retransmission related operation in the same class of wireless systems.
Even though Kutz in view of Yang teaches a UE that returns feedback the network uses to adapt the coding rate, and network signaling designating which feedback format the UE is to transmit: (Kutz, para [0096]; Yang, para [0067]), Kutz in view of Yang does not explicitly disclose the surplus capacity report transmitted on the acknowledgement branch.
Nevertheless, Kutz in view of Yang and further in view of Andgart discloses a redundancy-with-capacity metric associated with a multiple incremental redundancy scheme (MIRS) based at least in part on a value of a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) bit; because Andgart teaches that a successful decoding is acknowledged with an index that reports the margin of decoding capacity remaining, which is a report of redundancy with respect to capacity keyed to the acknowledgement value (Andgart, para [0103], “The ACK with a certain ACK_idx serves as a decoding margin”).
Furthermore, Andgart also discloses or transmit the redundancy-with-capacity metric associated with the MIRS in accordance with the value of the HARQ bit being a HARQ acknowledgement (ACK). because Andgart teaches that which report is transmitted is determined by the decoding outcome, the acknowledgement carrying the margin index and the negative acknowledgement being sent without it (Andgart, para [0102], “If any of the above decodings were successful, transmit an ACK with ACK_idx (969). Otherwise, transmit a NACK (971).”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Andgart's acknowledgement side decoding margin report to the feedback that the UE of Kutz in view of Yang may be directed to transmit, because Kutz teaches the utility of a capacity metric when decoding fails and Andgart teaches the complementary metric when decoding succeeds, so that the network obtains rate adaptation information for both decoding outcomes, with a reasonable expectation of success because Andgart's report is carried in the acknowledgement the UE already transmits.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, (Currently Amended) Kutz discloses The UE of claim 1, wherein the value of the HARQ bit indicates that the gap-to-capacity metric is transmitted with the HARQ bit in accordance with the HARQ bit being the HARQ NACK., as Kutz further discloses the negative acknowledgement and the gap to capacity metric being sent together upon decoding failure (Kutz, para [0096] “The UE may send a negative acknowledgment (NACK) (and a gap to capacity) to the BS, in response to the decoding failure”).
Accordingly, Kutz, Yang, and Andgart are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1, (Currently Amended) Kutz in view of Yang and further in view of Andgart discloses The UE of claim 1, wherein the value of the HARQ bit indicates that the gap-to-capacity metric is not transmitted with the HARQ bit in accordance with the HARQ bit being the HARQ ACK., as Andgart further discloses that upon successful decoding the transmitted report is the acknowledgement carrying its margin index rather than a failure side metric, so that in the combination the gap to capacity metric of Kutz accompanies only the negative acknowledgement (Andgart, para [0102], “If any of the above decodings were successful, transmit an ACK with ACK_idx (969). Otherwise, transmit a NACK (971).”; Andgart, para [0094], “If an ACK is received, an ACK_idx is also received”).
Thus, Kutz, Yang, and Andgart are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1, (Currently Amended) Kutz in view of Yang discloses The UE of claim 1, wherein the instructions, executable to cause the UE to obtain the indication, are executable to cause the UE to receive the indication in downlink control information scheduling a physical downlink shared channel communication., as Yang further discloses that the downlink control information which schedules a downlink transmission is the message that designates the feedback format for that transmission (Yang, para [0114] “may transmit a DCI message 210-a to schedule a downlink transmission 215-a”; Yang, para [0114] “whether feedback associated with the corresponding downlink transmission 215, or associated with the DCI message 210, is super-ACK feedback or HARQ feedback”).
Consequently, Kutz, Yang, and Andgart are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, (Currently Amended) Kutz discloses: A user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more memories comprising instructions executable by the one or more processors to cause the UE to: because Kutz teaches a communications device that may be a UE, having a processing system with one or more processors coupled to a memory holding executable instructions: (Kutz, para [0100] “communication device 1000 may be a user equipment (UE) 104”; Kutz, para [0102] “Processing system 1002 includes one or more processors 1020 coupled to a computer-readable medium/memory 1020 via a bus 1006.”; Kutz, para [0147] “a memory comprising executable instructions; one or more processors configured to execute the executable instructions and cause the apparatus to perform a method”).
Moreover, Kutz discloses: transmit the HARQ bit; and transmit the gap-to-capacity metric associated with the MIRS in accordance with the value of the HARQ bit being a HARQ negative acknowledgement (NACK). because Kutz teaches the UE transmitting the negative acknowledgement together with the gap to capacity metric upon decoding failure, so that the gap to capacity metric is transmitted in accordance with the negative acknowledgement value of the HARQ bit: (Kutz, para [0096] “The UE may send a negative acknowledgment (NACK) (and a gap to capacity) to the BS, in response to the decoding failure”).
Although Kutz teaches that the UE sends a negative acknowledgement together with a gap to capacity metric upon decoding failure and participates in MIRS based coding rate adaptation: (Kutz, para [0096]; Kutz, para [0097]), Kutz does not explicitly disclose that the UE obtains an indication by which the report it transmits is selected.
Nonetheless, Kutz in view of Yang discloses obtain an indication to select between transmitting a gap-to-capacity metric and transmitting because Yang teaches that the network designates, by downlink control information or radio resource control signaling carried with the downlink transmission, which of two feedback formats the UE is to transmit for that transmission, which is the indication on which the UE's selection between the two reports is made (Yang, para [0067], “a downlink control information (DCI) message or radio resource control (RRC) information associated with a respective downlink transmission may indicate whether feedback associated with the downlink transmission is super-ACK feedback or HARQ feedback”).
Consequently, the rationale for combining Kutz and Yang is the same as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Even though Kutz in view of Yang teaches a UE that returns feedback the network uses to adapt the coding rate, and network signaling designating which feedback format the UE is to transmit: (Kutz, para [0096]; Yang, para [0067]), Kutz in view of Yang does not explicitly disclose the surplus capacity report named as the alternative in the selection.
However, Kutz in view of Yang and further in view of Andgart discloses a redundancy-with-capacity metric associated with a multiple incremental redundancy scheme (MIRS) based at least in part on a value of a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) bit; because Andgart teaches that a successful decoding is acknowledged with an index that reports the margin of decoding capacity remaining, which is a report of redundancy with respect to capacity keyed to the acknowledgement value (Andgart, para [0103], “The ACK with a certain ACK_idx serves as a decoding margin”).
Thus, Kutz, Yang, and Andgart are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 7, (Currently Amended) Kutz in view of Yang and further in view of Andgart discloses The UE of claim 7, wherein the value of the HARQ bit indicates that the redundancy-with-capacity metric is not transmitted with the HARQ bit in accordance with the value of the HARQ bit being the HARQ NACK., as Andgart further discloses that the margin index accompanies only the acknowledgement, and that upon failure a negative acknowledgement is transmitted without the margin index, the receiving node instead assigning a constant locally (Andgart, para [0102], “If any of the above decodings were successful,
transmit an ACK with ACK_idx (969). Otherwise, transmit a NACK (971)..”; Andgart, para [0094], “If a NACK is received, the ACK_idx may be assigned to a constant”).
Accordingly, Kutz, Yang, and Andgart are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 7, (Currently Amended) Kutz discloses The UE of claim 7, wherein the gap-to-capacity metric is transmitted with the HARQ bit in accordance with the HARQ bit being the HARQ NACK., as Kutz further discloses the negative acknowledgement and the gap to capacity metric being sent together upon decoding failure (Kutz, para [0096] “The UE may send a negative acknowledgment (NACK) (and a gap to capacity) to the BS, in response to the decoding failure”).
Thus, Kutz, Yang, and Andgart are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, which depends on claim 7, (Currently Amended) the claim recites: The UE of claim 7, wherein the instructions, executable to cause the UE to obtain the indication to transmit the gap-to-capacity metric associated with the MIRS, are executable to cause the UE to receive the indication in downlink control information scheduling a physical downlink shared channel communication. Claim 12 is analogous to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, (Currently Amended) Kutz discloses: A user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more memories comprising instructions executable by the one or more processors to cause the UE to: because Kutz teaches a communications device that may be a UE, having a processing system with one or more processors coupled to a memory holding executable instructions: (Kutz, para [0100] “communication device 1000 may be a user equipment (UE) 104”; Kutz, para [0102] “Processing system 1002 includes one or more processors 1020 coupled to a computer-readable medium/memory 1020 via a bus 1006.”; Kutz, para [0147] “a memory comprising executable instructions; one or more processors configured to execute the executable instructions and cause the apparatus to perform a method”).
Moreover, Kutz discloses: transmit the HARQ bit; and because Kutz teaches the UE transmitting the HARQ acknowledgement value: (Kutz, para [0096] “The UE may send a negative acknowledgment (NACK) (and a gap to capacity) to the BS, in response to the decoding failure”).
In addition, Kutz discloses: or transmit the gap-to-capacity metric associated with the MIRS in accordance with the value of the HARQ bit being a HARQ negative acknowledgement (NACK). because Kutz teaches the failure branch, in which the gap to capacity metric is transmitted together with the negative acknowledgement and is used by the network to adapt the coding rate for the retransmission: (Kutz, para [0096] “The UE may send a negative acknowledgment (NACK) (and a gap to capacity) to the BS, in response to the decoding failure”; Kutz, para [0097] “The BS may adapt the coding rate for the retransmission based on the gap to capacity”).
Although Kutz teaches MIRS based coding rate adaptation with gap to capacity feedback upon decoding failure: (Kutz, para [0096]; Kutz, para [0097]), Kutz does not explicitly disclose that the UE obtains an indication by which the report it transmits is selected.
Yet, Kutz in view of Yang discloses obtain an indication to select between transmitting because Yang teaches that the network designates, by downlink control information or radio resource control signaling carried with the downlink transmission, which of two feedback formats the UE is to transmit for that transmission, which is the indication on which the UE's selection between the two reports is made (Yang, para [0067], “a downlink control information (DCI) message or radio resource control (RRC) information associated with a respective downlink transmission may indicate whether feedback associated with the downlink transmission is super-ACK feedback or HARQ feedback”).
For these reasons, the rationale for combining Kutz and Yang is the same as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Even though Kutz in view of Yang teaches a UE that returns feedback the network uses to adapt the coding rate, and network signaling designating which feedback format the UE is to transmit: (Kutz, para [0096]; Yang, para [0067]), Kutz in view of Yang does not explicitly disclose the acknowledgement side report by which the retransmission scheme is operated.
Conversely, Kutz in view of Yang and further in view of Andgart discloses feedback to operate a multiple incremental redundancy scheme (MIRS) and transmitting a gap-to-capacity metric associated with the MIRS based at least in part on a value of a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) bit; because Andgart teaches that the acknowledgement carries a decoding margin on which the network reconfigures the transmission properties used for further transport block sequences, which is feedback by which the retransmission scheme is operated (Andgart, para [0105], “reconfiguring S3 the transmission properties to be used for transmissions of one or more further transport block sequences to the receiving wireless device 10, based on the decoding margin”).
Furthermore, Kutz in view of Yang and further in view of Andgart discloses transmit the feedback to operate the MIRS in accordance with the value of the HARQ bit being a HARQ acknowledgement (ACK), because Andgart teaches that the decoding margin is what the acknowledgement itself defines, so that the report is transmitted in accordance with the acknowledgement value of the HARQ bit (Andgart, para [0122], “the ACK defines a decoding margin of the decoding”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Andgart's acknowledgement side margin report to the retransmission scheme of Kutz in view of Yang, because Andgart teaches that the margin reported on a successful decoding is what the network uses to reconfigure later transmissions, predictably allowing successful decoding outcomes to tune initial transmissions and retransmission planning, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Thus, Kutz, Yang, and Andgart are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 17, which depends on claim 15, (Original) Kutz in view of Yang and further in view of Andgart discloses The UE of claim 15, wherein the feedback to operate the MIRS is associated with a request to increase a robustness of a modulation and coding scheme for an initial transmission of a communication by a network node or a request to correct a number of planned retransmissions of a communication by the network node., as Andgart further discloses selecting a higher robustness for later transmissions when the decoding margin is low, and adjusting the number of repetitions (Andgart, para [0107], “selecting transmission properties corresponding to a robustness which is higher than the robustness of the transmission of the transport block sequence, if the decoding margin is below a predefined level”; Andgart, para [0114], “Robustness may be adjusted by adjusting the number of repetitions of a transmitted message.”; Andgart, para [0096], “A new value of number of repetitions, k, may now be calculated”).
Accordingly, Kutz, Yang, and Andgart are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 18, which depends on claim 15, (Currently Amended) the claim recites: The UE of claim 15, wherein the instructions, executable to cause the UE to obtain the indication, are executable to cause the UE to receive the indication in downlink control information scheduling a physical downlink shared channel communication. Claim 18 is analogous to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 5, 6, 13, 14, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutz (US 2022/0368387 A1) in view of Yang (US 2021/0258102 A1) and further in view of Andgart (US 2021/0211242 A1) and further in view of Xiong (EP 3 403 350 B1).
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1, (Currently Amended) even though Kutz in view of Yang and further in view of Andgart teaches the indication and the two outcome keyed reports as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above: (Kutz, para [0096]; Yang, para [0067]; Andgart, para [0103]), Kutz in view of Yang and further in view of Andgart does not explicitly disclose the unicast delivery vehicle for that indication.
However, Kutz in view of Yang and further in view of Andgart and further in view of Xiong discloses The UE of claim 1, wherein the instructions, executable to cause the UE to obtain the indication, are executable to cause the UE to receive the indication in a unicast radio resource control message or a unicast medium access control message. because Xiong teaches configuring the HARQ feedback scheme resource for a particular UE by radio resource control signaling dedicated to that UE (Xiong, para [0025], “a dedicated SR resource can be configured by the eNodeB via UE dedicated RRC signaling”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deliver the feedback format indication through the UE dedicated higher layer signaling Xiong teaches, because Xiong teaches UE specific signaling paths for controlling the HARQ feedback scheme, predictably providing a UE specific control path for indicating which MIRS related report is to be transmitted, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1, (Currently Amended) even though Kutz in view of Yang and further in view of Andgart teaches the indication and the two outcome keyed reports as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above: (Kutz, para [0096]; Yang, para [0067]; Andgart, para [0103]), Kutz in view of Yang and further in view of Andgart does not explicitly disclose the cell wide delivery vehicle for that indication.
Nevertheless, Kutz in view of Yang and further in view of Andgart and further in view of Xiong discloses The UE of claim 1, wherein the instructions, executable to cause the UE to obtain the indication, are executable to cause the UE to receive the indication in a radio resource control message or a system information block for each UE included in a cell. because Xiong teaches that the resource partition governing the HARQ feedback scheme is configured by higher layers through a system information block or radio resource control signaling (Xiong, para [0027], “The xPRACH resource partition can be predefined or configured by higher layers via xMIB, xSIB or RRC signaling”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deliver the feedback format indication through the radio resource control or system information signaling Xiong teaches, because Xiong teaches higher layer configuration of HARQ feedback scheme operation, predictably providing a cell wide control path for indicating which MIRS related report is to be transmitted, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 13, which depends on claim 7, (Currently Amended) the claim recites: The UE of claim 7, wherein the instructions, executable to cause the UE to obtain the indication to transmit the gap-to-capacity metric associated with the MIRS, are executable to cause the UE to receive the indication in a unicast radio resource control message or a unicast medium access control message. Claim 13 is analogous to claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14, which depends on claim 7, (Currently Amended) the claim recites: The UE of claim 7, wherein the instructions, executable to cause the UE to obtain the indication to transmit the gap-to-capacity metric associated with the MIRS, are executable to cause the UE to receive the indication in a radio resource control message or a system information block for each UE included in a cell. Claim 14 is analogous to claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, which depends on claim 15, (Original) even though Kutz in view of Yang and further in view of Andgart teaches feedback used to operate the MIRS as set forth in the rejection of claim 15 above: (Kutz, para [0097]; Yang, para [0067]; Andgart, para [0105]), Kutz in view of Yang and further in view of Andgart does not explicitly disclose the recited buffer or delay alternatives.
However, Kutz in view of Yang and further in view of Andgart and further in view of Xiong discloses The UE of claim 15, wherein the feedback to operate the MIRS includes information associated with a management of an internal HARQ buffer of the UE or a delay requirement associated with the UE. because Xiong teaches feedback related signaling that carries a UE decoding capability expressed as a HARQ feedback delay (Xiong, para [0026], “a corresponding MAC control element can include a UE decoding capability, i.e., HARQ feedback delay”).
Claim 16 recites its two alternatives in the disjunctive, so the claim is satisfied when either is satisfied. The alternative relied on is the recitation of a delay requirement associated with the UE, which is the limitation mapped above. No reference is relied on as teaching the remaining alternative, and none is needed to sustain the rejection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the UE delay reporting Xiong teaches in the feedback by which the MIRS is operated, because Xiong teaches HARQ feedback delay as UE capability information relevant to HARQ operation, predictably allowing the network to select an appropriate feedback timeline and operating mode for the UE, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 19, which depends on claim 15, (Currently Amended) the claim recites: The UE of claim 15, wherein the instructions, executable to cause the UE to obtain the indication, are executable to cause the UE to receive the indication in a unicast radio resource control message or a unicast medium access control message. Claim 19 is analogous to claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, which depends on claim 15, (Currently Amended) the claim recites: The UE of claim 15, wherein the instructions, executable to cause the UE to obtain the indication, are executable to cause the UE to receive the indication in a radio resource control message or a system information block for each UE included in a cell. Claim 20 is analogous to claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutz (US 2022/0368387 A1) in view of Yang (US 2021/0258102 A1) and further in view of Andgart (US 2021/0211242 A1) and further in view of Alkhoder et al., “A New Adaptive Rate IR-HARQ Combining with AMC” (Alkhoder).
Regarding claim 9, which depends on claim 8, (Currently Amended) even though Kutz in view of Yang and further in view of Andgart teaches transmitting the gap to capacity metric upon the negative acknowledgement value as set forth in the rejection of claim 7 above: (Kutz, para [0096]; Yang, para [0067]; Andgart, para [0102]), Kutz in view of Yang and further in view of Andgart does not explicitly disclose the recited formulation of that metric.
However, Kutz in view of Yang and further in view of Andgart and further in view of Alkhoder discloses The UE of claim 8, wherein the instructions, executable to cause the UE to transmit the gap-to-capacity metric associated with the MIRS, are executable to cause the UE to transmit, to a network node, the gap-to-capacity metric that is based at least in part on subtracting a mutual information metric from one. because Alkhoder teaches evaluating the redundancy required for the next transmission from the shortfall of the normalized accumulated mutual information relative to the unit decoding threshold, that is, as one minus that mutual information metric (See Alkhoder, pg. 343, Eq. (7) (10), FIG 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to express the gap to capacity feedback of Kutz as the mutual information deficit referenced to the unit decoding threshold that Alkhoder teaches, because both references address incremental redundancy retransmission adaptation driven by unsuccessful decoding and accumulated mutual information, predictably providing a quantitative gap metric directly usable for retransmission and coding rate adaptation, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Accordingly, Kutz, Yang, and Andgart are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, which depends on claim 10, (Currently Amended) even though Kutz in view of Yang and further in view of Andgart teaches the acknowledgement side decoding margin report as set forth in the rejections of claims 1 and 8 above: (Kutz, para [0096]; Yang, para [0067]; Andgart, para [0103]), Kutz in view of Yang and further in view of Andgart does not explicitly disclose the recited formulation of that metric.
Nevertheless, Kutz in view of Yang and further in view of Andgart and further in view of Alkhoder discloses The UE of claim 10, wherein the redundancy-with-capacity metric is based at least in part on subtracting one from a mutual information metric. because Alkhoder teaches that a successful decoding corresponds to the normalized accumulated mutual information reaching or exceeding the unit threshold, so that the surplus is the amount by which that mutual information metric exceeds one (Alkhoder, pg. 342, Eq. (6)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to represent the acknowledgement side decoding margin of Andgart as capacity surplus referenced to the successful decoding threshold Alkhoder teaches, because such a representation provides a quantitative measure of excess decoding capability for operation of the retransmission scheme, predictably enabling the network node to use acknowledgement side surplus information for later MIRS operation and transmission adaptation, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Accordingly, Kutz, Yang, and Andgart are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHONGSUH (John) PARK whose telephone number is 408-918-7574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:30 PST
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, Avellino, Joseph can be reached at 571-272-3905 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.
/CHONGSUH PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights