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 .
The instant office action is in response to communication filed on 05/23/2024.
Claims 1-30 are pending of which claims 1-30 are pending of which claims 1, 19 and 29 are independent.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2-4, 13-14, 16,18, 29 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al (US 20220094476 A1, hereinafter referred to as Yang).
Regarding Claim 1, Yang discloses an apparatus for wireless communication (i.e. in Figs. 1-3 UE 115 is the apparatus and in Figs. 4-7 the structural components of UE 115 is shown), comprising: one or more memories (i.e. Fig. 7 Memory 7 per paragraphs 131 and 104), individually or in combination, having instructions; and one or more processors (Fig. 7 processor 740 per paragraph 131), individually or in combination, configured to execute the instructions (Fig. 7 code 735 per paragraph 135) and cause the apparatus to:
output a first control signal configured to acknowledge that a first data signal was obtained (See Paragraph 93 transmits ACK as a first control signal after receiving a first transmission signal as a first data signal from BS 105. See also paragraph 99 in relation to Fig. 2 ), wherein the first control signal (i.e. ACK as a first control signal transmitted by the UE – per paragraph 93) is output for transmission at a first transmit power (Per Paragraphs 105 and 107 indicates there is a power offset between the ACK/NACK feedback and data and hence the ACK is transmitted as the first control signal at a first transmit power);
obtain, after outputting the first control signal, first signaling indicative of retransmission of the first data signal (Per paragraph 93 – after the UE has sent an ACK as the first control signal to base station 105 for acknowledging the first transmission received from the base station 105 as the first data signal, despite the UE 115 ‘s acknowledgment the BS 105 retransmits the first transmission as first signaling. Therefore the retransmission of the first transmission/first data signal is the first signaling. The fact that BS 105 misinterpreted the ACK and retransmitted the first transmission is considered by the UE as an ACK-T0-NACK (A2N) error. ) and further indicative of a first acknowledgment to negative acknowledgment (A2N) event (See paragraphs 93 and 101 on the UE expecting a new second data signal after acknowledging the first data signal received but instead gets a retransmission of the first data signal and is classified by the UE 115 as an ACK-To-NACK error/event or A2N event. Per Paragraph 102 A2N event is also classified as a Type 1 feedback error); and
after obtaining the first signaling (i.e. the first signaling is the retransmission of the first data signal/first transmission – see paragraph 93 and 103) , output corrective signaling comprising at least one of: (i) a second control signal, wherein the second control signal is output for transmission at a second transmit power greater than the first transmit power based at least in part on the first A2N event (i.e. note this limitation need not be addressed as it is in the alternative but at the minimum per paragraphs 105 and 107 indicates power offsets occurs between consecutive ACK/NACK feedbacks indicating the second ACK/NACK is sent at an increased transmit power due to the power offset being added to the second ACK/NACK), or (ii) a report indicative of the first A2N event.(See paragraph 103 – where the UE 115 sends a report in the form of Feedback Error Indication 230 for A2N events as ACK-To-NACK errors count exceeding a threshold. See Figs. 2 and 3 . See Fig. 12 block 1215. Note Paragraphs 90-110 are relevant. )
Regarding Claim 29, Yang discloses a method (i.e. Figs. 1-18) for wireless communication at a wireless node (i.e. in Figs. 1-3 UE 115 is the apparatus and in Figs. 4-7 the structural components of UE 115 is shown), comprising:
outputting a first control signal configured to acknowledge that a first data signal was obtained (See Paragraph 93 transmits ACK as a first control signal after receiving a first transmission signal as a first data signal from BS 105. See also paragraph 99 in relation to Fig. 2 ), wherein the first control signal (i.e. ACK as a first control signal transmitted by the UE – per paragraph 93) is output for transmission at a first transmit power (Per Paragraphs 105 and 107 indicates there is a power offset between the ACK/NACK feedback and data and hence the ACK is transmitted as the first control signal at a first transmit power);
obtaining, after outputting the first control signal, first signaling indicative of retransmission of the first data signal (Per paragraph 93 – after the UE has sent an ACK as the first control signal to base station 105 for acknowledging the first transmission received from the base station 105 as the first data signal, despite the UE 115 ‘s acknowledgment the BS 105 retransmits the first transmission as first signaling. Therefore the retransmission of the first transmission/first data signal is the first signaling. The fact that BS 105 misinterpreted the ACK and retransmitted the first transmission is considered by the UE as an ACK-T0-NACK (A2N) error. ) and further indicative of a first acknowledgment to negative acknowledgment (A2N) event (See paragraphs 93 and 101 on the UE expecting a new second data signal after acknowledging the first data signal received but instead gets a retransmission of the first data signal and is classified by the UE 115 as an ACK-To-NACK error/event or A2N event. Per Paragraph 102 A2N event is also classified as a Type 1 feedback error); and
after obtaining the first signaling (i.e. the first signaling is the retransmission of the first data signal/first transmission – see paragraph 93 and 103) , output corrective signaling comprising at least one of: (i) a second control signal, wherein the second control signal is output for transmission at a second transmit power greater than the first transmit power based at least in part on the first A2N event (i.e. note this limitation need not be addressed as it is in the alternative but at the minimum per paragraphs 105 and 107 indicates power offsets occurs between consecutive ACK/NACK feedbacks indicating the second ACK/NACK is sent at an increased transmit power due to the power offset being added to the second ACK/NACK), or (ii) a report indicative of the first A2N event.(See paragraph 103 – where the UE 115 sends a report in the form of Feedback Error Indication 230 for A2N events as ACK-To-NACK errors count exceeding a threshold. See Figs. 2 and 3 . See Fig. 12 block 1215. Note Paragraphs 90-110 are relevant.)
Regarding claim 2, Yang discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first A2N event is one of multiple A2N events within a time window (See Fig. 3 block 310 and paragraphs 112, 169 and the UE detects the one or more feedback errors for the at least one feedback error type (See Paragraph 22 on error type being ACK To NACK (A2N event) within at least one time window according to the feedback error configuration. See also Fig. 13 block 1310), and wherein the corrective signaling is output based on a quantity of the multiple A2N events satisfying a threshold condition.(See Yang Fig. 3 block 315 where a quantity of the feedback errors for the feedback error type A2N event or Ack To NACK occurs in a manner meeting a threshold then a corrective signaling is sent to the BS 105 as Feedback error indication 320. See paragraph 112).
Regarding claim 3, Yang discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are further configured to cause the apparatus to: obtain an indication of a duration of the time window (see paragraph 96 indicating the time window is based on quantity of symbols and in paragraph 111 the BS 105 sends feedback error configuration 305 t UE 115 defining the time window in terms of symbols), wherein the duration of the time window is based on a quantity of symbols, a quantity of control signals output, or a quantity of data signals obtained. (see paragraph 96 indicating the time window is based on quantity of symbols and in paragraph 111 the BS 105 sends feedback error configuration 305 to UE 115 defining the time window in terms of symbols. Fig. 12 block 1205)
Regarding claim 4, Yang discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the quantity of the multiple A2N events correspond to a quantity of retransmitted data signals obtained within the time window (Per paragraph 93 feedback error is an A2N event as it is an ACK-to-NACK feedback error determined based on retransmitted data signal and per paragraph 112 and Fig. 3 block 310 number of A2N events as number of feedback errors and correspond to number of retransmitted data signal ) , and wherein the retransmitted data signals include the retransmission of the first data signal.(See paragraph 103 indicating the retransmitted data signals include the retransmission of the first data signal.)
Regarding claim 13, Yang discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the report is output via a medium access control-control element (MAC-CE) or uplink control information (UCI) message. (See paragraph 151, wherein the report being the feedback error identification 320 shown in Fig. 3 and the feedback error indication 320 is received via RRC signaling. In some cases, the feedback error indication is received via a CSI or a MAC-CE, or both.)
Regarding claim 14, Yang discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the report comprises an indication of at least one of: a component carrier (CC) index associated with the first A2N event (Component Carrier is frequency band combination per paragraphs 63 and 69 and per paragraph 111 feedback error (A2N event) detection is per frequency band combination/Carrier and is part of the report/Feedback Error Indication. See also paragraph 115), an identifier associated with the first control signal (i.e. paragraph 105 ACK being the first signal per ARQ/HARQ protocol has to have a unique identifier as a sequence number. Further in paragraph 105 “preferred ACK/NACK feedback” indicates a means to differentiate and identify), or an identifier associated with a slot via which the first control signal was output.
Regarding claim 16, Yang discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are further configured to cause the apparatus to: obtain, after outputting the report, a transmission power control (TPC) command configured to increase transmit power of control signals output for transmission from the first transmit power to the second transmit power. (Per paragraph 25, after the report/feedback error indication is outputted a reconfiguration message that indicates a power offset modification/TPC)
Regarding claim 18, Yang discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a transceiver (Fig. 7 transceiver 720 of UE 115-a) configured to: transmit the first control signal (i.e. Acknowledgment 220 in Fig. 2 is first control signal per paragraph 100); receive the first signaling (i.e. first signaling is the retransmission of the first data signal 225 in Fig. by the BS 105 and UE receiving it – see paragraph 103) ; and transmit the corrective signaling (paragraph 105 indicating feedback error indication 230 in Fig. 2 sent from UE 115), wherein the apparatus is configured as a user equipment (UE). (See Fig. 2 UE 115)
Regarding claim 30, claim 30 is rejected in the same scope as claim 2.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Kim et al (US 20240357588 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Yang discloses the apparatus of claim 4, but fails to disclose wherein each of the retransmitted data signals is a retransmission of a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) transmission or a retransmission of a transport block (TB).
Kim, in the same endeavor discloses wherein each of the retransmitted data signals is a retransmission of a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) transmission (Paragraph 75) or a retransmission of a transport block (TB) (See Paragraph 299). (See Paragraph 75 stating that even if a UE fails to receive a PDCCH scheduling an initial transmission, the UE can normally perform, based on DCI scheduling a subsequently retransmitted PDSCH, decoding of a codeword related to the PDSCH. See paragraphs 33, 39, and 46. See paragraphs 298-299 on retransmission of transport block (TB))
In view of the above, having Yang’s Feedback Error Handling system and then given the well- established teaching of Kim’s techniques for retransmitting PDSCH, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Yang’s Feedback Error Handling system as taught by Kim’s techniques for retransmitting PDSCH, since Kim states in paragraph 240 that the modification results in allowing maximizing retransmission efficiency.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Terry et al (US 20070168826 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Yang discloses the apparatus of claim 1, including wherein the first A2N event is one of multiple A2N events within a time window (i.e. Fig. 3 block 310 per paragraph 112), and wherein the one or more processors(Fig. 7 processor 740 per paragraph 131), individually or in combination, further configured to : wherein a quantity of the multiple A2N events correspond to a quantity of retransmitted data signals (Per paragraph 93 feedback error is an A2N event as it is an ACK-to-NACK feedback error determined based on retransmitted data signal and per paragraph 112 and Fig. 3 block 310 number of A2N events as number of feedback errors and correspond to number of retransmitted data signal )
Yang fails to further disclose further configured to: discard the retransmission of the first data signal, within the time window.
Terry, in the same endeavor, further discloses further configured to: discard the retransmission of the first data signal, within the time window. (See Fig. 1 and paragraph 4 effectively states wherein the transmitter upon receiving a NACK, the H-ARQ transmitter retransmits the packet if the number of retransmissions of the failed packet is less than a predetermined maximum limit, and the allowed transmission time for the failed packet has not expired and otherwise, the failed packet is discarded.)
In view of the above, having Yang’s Feedback Error Handling system and then given the well- established teaching of Terry’s techniques for discarding retransmitted data, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Yang’s Feedback Error Handling system as taught by Terry’s techniques for discarding retransmitted data, since Terry states in paragraph 003 that the modification results in to improving reliability of data transmission.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Englund et al (US 20090238148 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Yang discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, but fails to disclose are further configured to cause the apparatus to:
obtain, prior to the second control signal being output, configuration information
comprising: (i) an indication of the second transmit power, and (ii) an indication to output,
after obtaining the first signaling, the second control signal for transmission using the
second transmit power.
Englund, in the same endeavor, further discloses , wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are further configured to cause the apparatus to:
obtain, prior to the second control signal being output , configuration information (predefined steps to increase or decrease the A/N feedback channel power – see paragraphs 9, 28 and 32)
comprising: (i) an indication of the second transmit power (paragraphs 9, 28 and 32 are an indication of the second transmit power by increasing the initial first transmit power by the predefined step), and (ii) an indication to output,
after obtaining the first signaling, the second control signal for transmission using the
second transmit power. (See paragraph 40 in relation to steps 24 and 26 in Fig. 2 using the second transmit power by increasing the power and steps 25 and 27 in Fig. 2 using the second transmit power by decreasing the power while step 21 in Fig. 2 first signal/transmission is obtained/received, See paragraphs 19 and 39-40 in relation to Fig. 2)
In view of the above, having Yang’s Feedback Error Handling system and then given the well- established teaching of Englund’s techniques for adjusting the power of feedback channel during retransmission, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Yang’s Feedback Error Handling system as taught by Englund’s techniques for adjusting the power of feedback channel during retransmission, since Englund states in paragraph 0019 that the modification results in detecting errors in the feedback information for HARQ processes and allows use of this information to adjust the power for the feedback channel, the default power setting can be lowered leaving more power for downlink oriented traffic and allows efficient radio resource allocation.
Regarding claim 10, Yang modified by Englund discloses the apparatus of claim 9, but fails to disclose wherein the configuration information further comprises: an indication of multiple transmit powers including the second transmit power, and an indication of one or more A2N event thresholds each configured to trigger a corresponding transmit power of the multiple transmit powers.
Englund, in the same endeavor, discloses wherein the configuration information (see Paragraph 28 predefined power steps and “jump algorithm” as configuration information) further comprises: an indication of multiple transmit powers including the second transmit power (See per paragraph 28 stating “The power adjustment is preferably done by using a "jump algorithm" where each occurrence of the error event triggers an increase of feedback power with a predefined step otherwise the power is gradually decreased by a fraction of the predefined step.” See also paragraphs 27 and 29), and an indication of one or more A2N event thresholds each configured to trigger a corresponding transmit power of the multiple transmit powers. (Per paragraph 27 description of A2N event/error detection a corresponding transmit power is applied to the second control signal/ACK/NACK per paragraph 28)
In view of the above, having Yang’s Feedback Error Handling system and then given the well- established teaching of Englund’s techniques for adjusting the power of feedback channel during retransmission, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Yang’s Feedback Error Handling system as taught by Englund’s techniques for adjusting the power of feedback channel during retransmission,, since Englund states in paragraph 0019 that the modification results in detecting errors in the feedback information for HARQ processes and allows use of this information to adjust the power for the feedback channel, the default power setting can be lowered leaving more power for downlink oriented traffic and allows efficient radio resource allocation.
Claim(s) 11, 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Dimou et al (US 20230046231 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Yang discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the second control signal is multiplexed on a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), and wherein the PUSCH is output for transmission at the second transmit power.
Dimou, in the same endeavor, discloses wherein the second control signal is multiplexed on a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), and wherein the PUSCH is output for transmission at the second transmit power. (Per paragraph 204,and Fig. 15 , Upon receiving the NACK-only transmission 1530, the BS may retransmit the DL data in the DL data signal 324 as discussed above. For instance, the UE may fail to decode the retransmission (e.g., DL data signal 328). Thus, the UE may again feedback a NACK to the BS. If the UE has URLLC data 1542 (e.g., PUSCH data) to be sent to the BS and UL schedule coincides with the NACK feedback schedule, the UE may multiplex the URLLC data 1542 with the NACK-only UCI, for example, in an UL transmission with transmit power boosting, to the BS.)
In view of the above, having Yang’s Feedback Error Handling system and then given the well- established teaching of Dimou’s techniques for adjusting the power of feedback channel during retransmission using PUSCH, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Yang’s Feedback Error Handling system as taught by Dimou’s techniques for adjusting the power of feedback channel during retransmission using PUSCH, since Dimou states in paragraph 0002 that the modification results in acknowledgement/negative-acknowledgement (ACK/NACK) transmissions (e.g., hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) ACK/NACK) enabling and providing techniques allowing communication devices (e.g., user equipment devices or base stations) to transmit a negative-acknowledgement (NACK) feedback with a higher transmission reliability than an acknowledgement (ACK) feedback.
Regarding claim 12, Yang discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the second control signal is output for transmission via a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH), and wherein the PUCCH is output for transmission at the second transmit power.
Dimou, in the same endeavor, discloses wherein the second control signal is output for transmission via a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH), and wherein the PUCCH is output for transmission at the second transmit power. (See Paragraph 0008 stating, a BS may configure a UE with a physical control channel (PUCCH) configuration for transmitting ACK/NACKs. The PUCCH configuration may include a NACK-specific transmission configuration for transmitting NACK transmissions with a higher transmission reliability than ACK transmissions. The NACK transmission configuration may configure the UE to boost transmit powers of NACK transmissions and/or apply multi-beams for NACK transmissions.)
In view of the above, having Yang’s Feedback Error Handling system and then given the well- established teaching of Dimou’s techniques for adjusting the power of feedback channel during retransmission using PUSCH, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Yang’s Feedback Error Handling system as taught by Dimou’s techniques for adjusting the power of feedback channel during retransmission using PUSCH, since Dimou states in paragraphs 0002 and 0008 that the modification results in acknowledgement/negative-acknowledgement (ACK/NACK) transmissions (e.g., hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) ACK/NACK) enabling and providing techniques allowing communication devices (e.g., user equipment devices or base stations) to transmit a negative-acknowledgement (NACK) feedback with a higher transmission reliability than an acknowledgement (ACK) feedback.
Regarding, Claim 15, Yang discloses, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, but fails to disclose are further configured to cause the apparatus to: obtain prohibit timer information; start a prohibit timer upon or after outputting the report; and refrain from outputting an additional report within a duration of the prohibit timer.
Dimou, in the same endeavor, discloses are further configured to cause the apparatus to: obtain prohibit timer information (Per paragraph 197 the UE obtains from the BS prohibition timer configuration info); start a prohibit timer upon or after outputting the report (i.e. per paragraph 197 after sending the report/SR to the BS the UE starts the prohibition timer); and refrain from outputting an additional report within a duration of the prohibit timer.(Per paragraph 197, when the SR prohibition timer is running, the UE may not be allowed to transmit an SR/report).
In view of the above, having Yang’s Feedback Error Handling system and then given the well- established teaching of Dimou’s techniques for prohibition timer use, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Yang’s Feedback Error Handling system as taught by Dimou’s techniques for prohibition timer use, since Dimou states in 197 that the modification allows the BS to restrict how often the UE transmit a report/request.
Claim(s) 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Suh (US 20260032572 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Yang discloses an apparatus for wireless communication (i.e. in Figs. 8-10 Base Station 105 is the apparatus and in Figs. 9-11 the structural components of base station 105 is shown), comprising: one or more memories (i.e. Fig. 11 Memory 1130 per paragraphs 156 and 159), individually or in combination, having instructions; and one or more processors (Fig. 11 processor 1140 per paragraph 156), individually or in combination, configured to execute the instructions (Fig. 11 code 1135 per paragraph 1160) and cause the apparatus to:
output a first data signal; (i.e. per paragraph 93, Base Station 105 sends a first transmission to the UE 115 as a first data signal)
output first signaling indicative of a retransmission of the first data signal, wherein the first signaling is output after not obtaining, Per paragraph 93 – the BS 105 retransmits the first transmission as first signaling, despite the UE 115 ‘s sending acknowledgment and not being received or correctly decoded by the BS 105 wherein the acknowledgment is the first control signal sent by UE 115 to base station 105 for acknowledging the first transmission received from the base station 105 as the first data signal,. Therefore the retransmission of the first transmission/first data signal is the first signaling. The fact that BS 105 misinterpreted the ACK and retransmitted the first transmission is considered by the UE as an ACK-T0-NACK (A2N) error. See also paragraph 99 )
output the first data signal for retransmission; (See paragraphs 102 and 103 where Base Station 105 retransmits the first data transmission) and
obtain corrective signaling configured to indicate a first acknowledgment to negative acknowledgment (A2N) event associated with the first data signal. (See paragraphs 93 and 101 on the UE expecting a new second data signal after acknowledging the first data signal received but instead gets a retransmission of the first data signal and is classified by the UE 115 as an ACK-To-NACK error/event or A2N event. Per Paragraph 102 A2N event is also classified as a Type 1 feedback error. See paragraph 103 – where the UE 115 sends a report in the form of Feedback Error Indication 230 for A2N events as ACK-To-NACK errors count exceeding a threshold as corrective signaling. See Figs. 2 and 3 and 16 . See Fig. 16 block 1615 and See Fig. 12 block 1215. Note Paragraphs 90-110 are relevant.)
Yang fails to disclose output first signaling indicative of a retransmission of the first data signal, wherein the first signaling is output after not obtaining, during a time window, an acknowledgment of receipt of the first data signal.
Suh, in the same endeavor, discloses output first signaling indicative of a retransmission of the first data signal, wherein the first signaling is output after not obtaining, during a time window, an acknowledgment of receipt of the first data signal. (See paragraphs 137, 176, 190, 215, and 297. See Fig. 2 where the AMF/BS 111 sends a first configuration command signal to UE 101 and if no response (i.e. response is acknowledgment ) is received within T35zz timer (i.e. time window) then the first configuration command signal is retransmitted N times as shown in Fig. 2 step 251-1 to 251-4.)
In view of the above, having Yang’s Feedback Error Handling system and then given the well- established teaching of Suh’s techniques for retransmitting, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Yang’s Feedback Error Handling system as taught by Suh’s techniques for retransmitting, since Suh states in paragraph 17 that the modification results in allowing support a network slice service to the UE when session-related retransmission occurs.
Regarding claim 20, Yang modified by Suh discloses the apparatus of claim 19, Yang further discloses wherein the corrective signaling comprises a report configured to indicate the first A2N event. .(See Yang paragraph 103 – where the UE 115 sends a report in the form of Feedback Error Indication 230 for A2N events as ACK-To-NACK errors count exceeding a threshold. See Figs. 2 and 3 . See Fig. 12 block 1215. Note Paragraphs 90-110 are relevant. )
Regarding claim 21, Yang modified by Suh discloses the apparatus of claim 19, Yang further discloses, wherein the first A2N event is one of multiple A2N events within a time window(See Fig. 3 block 310 and paragraphs 112, 169 and the UE detects the one or more feedback errors for the at least one feedback error type (See Paragraph 22 on error type being ACK To NACK (A2N event) within at least one time window according to the feedback error configuration. See also Fig. 13 block 1310), and wherein the corrective signaling is further configured to indicate a quantity of the multiple A2N events satisfying a threshold condition. (See Yang Fig. 3 block 315 where a quantity of the feedback errors for the feedback error type A2N event or Ack To NACK occurs in a manner meeting a threshold then a corrective signaling is sent to the BS 105 as Feedback error indication 320. See paragraph 112).
Regarding claim 22, Yang modified by Suh discloses the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are further configured to cause the apparatus to: Yang further discloses, wherein the first output a radio resource control (RRC) message (RRC signaling see paragraph 0023), the RRC message configured to indicate a duration of the time window(see Yang paragraph 96 indicating the time window is based on quantity of symbols and in paragraph 111 the BS 105 sends feedback error configuration 305 t UE 115 defining the time window in terms of symbols), wherein the duration of the time window is associated with a quantity of symbols, a quantity of control signals, or a quantity of data signals output. (see paragraph 96 indicating the time window is based on quantity of symbols and in paragraph 111 the BS 105 sends feedback error configuration 305 to UE 115 defining the time window in terms of symbols. Fig. 12 block 1205)
Regarding claim 27, Yang modified by Suh discloses the apparatus of claim 19,
Yang further discloses, wherein the corrective signaling comprises a report indicative of the first A2N event, and wherein the report is obtained via a medium access control-control element (MAC-CE) or uplink control information (UCI) message. (See paragraph 151, wherein the report being the feedback error identification 320 shown in Fig. 3 and the feedback error indication 320 is received via RRC signaling. In some cases, the feedback error indication is received via a CSI or a MAC-CE, or both.)
Regarding claim 28, Yang modified by Suh discloses the apparatus of claim 19, Yang further discloses further comprising
a transceiver (i.e. Figure 11, Transceiver 1120) configured to:
transmit the first data signal;(Paragraph 99, Fig. 2 first downlink transmission 215 is the first data signal)
transmit the first signaling; (i.e. the first signaling is the retransmission of the first data signal/first transmission – see paragraph 93 and 103)
transmit the first data signal;(Paragraph 99, Fig. 2 first downlink transmission 215 is the first data signal); and
receive the corrective signaling(paragraph 105 indicating feedback error indication 230 in Fig. 2 received by BS 105), wherein the apparatus is configured as a network entity. (i.e. BS 105 is a network entity)
Claim(s) 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Suh and further in view of Englund et al (US 20090238148 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Yang modified by Suh discloses the apparatus of claim 19, including wherein the corrective signaling comprises a control signal configured to acknowledge that the retransmission of the first data signal was obtained, and wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination. (Yang in paragraphs 99-100 and 111-112 in relation to Figs. 2 and 3 respectively discloses corrective signaling is either ACK or NACK confirming retransmitted first data and when threshold is exceeded Feedback Error Indication 320 in Fig. 3).
Yang modified by Suh fails to disclose are further configured to cause the apparatus to: output a radio resource control (RRC) message prior to the control signal being obtained, the RRC message comprising: (i) an indication of an increased transmit power of control signals, and (ii) an indication to output, after obtaining the retransmission of the first signaling, the control signal using the increased transmit power.
Englund, in the same endeavor, discloses are further configured to cause the apparatus to: output a radio resource control (RRC) message prior to the control signal being obtained(predefined steps to increase or decrease the A/N feedback channel power – see paragraphs 9, 28 and 32), the RRC message comprising: (i) an indication of an increased transmit power of control signals, (paragraphs 9, 28 and 32 are an indication of the second transmit power by increasing the initial first transmit power by the predefined step) and (ii) an indication to output, after obtaining the retransmission of the first signaling, the control signal using the increased transmit power. (See paragraph 40 in relation to steps 24 and 26 in Fig. 2 using the second transmit power by increasing the power and steps 25 and 27 in Fig. 2 using the second transmit power by decreasing the power while step 21 in Fig. 2 first signal/transmission is obtained/received, See paragraphs 19 and 39-40 in relation to Fig. 2)
In view of the above, having Yang’s Feedback Error Handling system modified by Suh’s techniques for retransmitting and then given the well- established teaching of Englund’s techniques for adjusting the power of feedback channel during retransmission, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to further modify Yang’s Feedback Error Handling system modified by Suh’s techniques for retransmitting as taught by Englund’s techniques for adjusting the power of feedback channel during retransmission,, since Englund states in paragraph 0019 that the modification results in detecting errors in the feedback information for HARQ processes and allows use of this information to adjust the power for the feedback channel, the default power setting can be lowered leaving more power for downlink oriented traffic and allows efficient radio resource allocation.
Regarding claim 24, Yang modified by Suh discloses the apparatus of claim 23, but fails to disclose wherein the RRC message further comprises an indication of multiple transmit powers for control signal transmission, the multiple transmit powers including the increased transmit power, and an indication of one or more A2N event thresholds each configured to trigger a corresponding transmit power of the multiple transmit powers.
Englund discloses wherein the RRC message further comprises an indication of multiple transmit powers for control signal transmission, the multiple transmit powers including the increased transmit power(See per paragraph 28 stating “The power adjustment is preferably done by using a "jump algorithm" where each occurrence of the error event triggers an increase of feedback power with a predefined step otherwise the power is gradually decreased by a fraction of the predefined step.” See also paragraphs 27 and 29), and an indication of one or more A2N event thresholds each configured to trigger a corresponding transmit power of the multiple transmit powers. (Per paragraph 27 description of A2N event/error detection a corresponding transmit power is applied to the second control signal/ACK/NACK per paragraph 28)
In view of the above, having Yang’s Feedback Error Handling system modified by Suh’s techniques for retransmitting and then given the well- established teaching of Englund’s techniques for adjusting the power of feedback channel during retransmission, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to further modify Yang’s Feedback Error Handling system modified by Suh’s techniques for retransmitting as taught by Englund’s techniques for adjusting the power of feedback channel during retransmission, since Englund states in paragraph 0019 that the modification results in detecting errors in the feedback information for HARQ processes and allows use of this information to adjust the power for the feedback channel, the default power setting can be lowered leaving more power for downlink oriented traffic and allows efficient radio resource allocation.
Claim(s) 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Suh and further in view of Dimou et al (US 20230046231 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Yang modified by Suh discloses the apparatus of claim 19, but fails to disclose wherein the corrective signaling comprises a control signal configured to acknowledge that the retransmission of the first data signal was obtained, and wherein the control signal is multiplexed on, and obtained via a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH).
Dimou, in the same endeavor, discloses wherein the corrective signaling comprises a control signal configured to acknowledge that the retransmission of the first data signal was obtained, and wherein the control signal is multiplexed on, and obtained via a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH). (Per paragraph 204,and Fig. 15 , Upon receiving the NACK-only transmission 1530, the BS may retransmit the DL data in the DL data signal 324 as discussed above. For instance, the UE may fail to decode the retransmission (e.g., DL data signal 328). Thus, the UE may again feedback a NACK to the BS. If the UE has URLLC data 1542 (e.g., PUSCH data) to be sent to the BS and UL schedule coincides with the NACK feedback schedule, the UE may multiplex the URLLC data 1542 with the NACK-only UCI, for example, in an UL transmission with transmit power boosting, to the BS.)
In view of the above, having Yang’s Feedback Error Handling system modified by Suh’s techniques for retransmitting and then given the well- established teaching of Dimou’s techniques for adjusting the power of feedback channel during retransmission using PUSCH, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to further modify Yang’s Feedback Error Handling system as taught by Dimou’s techniques for adjusting the power of feedback channel during retransmission using PUSCH, since Dimou states in paragraph 0002 that the modification results in acknowledgement/negative-acknowledgement (ACK/NACK) transmissions (e.g., hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) ACK/NACK) enabling and providing techniques allowing communication devices (e.g., user equipment devices or base stations) to transmit a negative-acknowledgement (NACK) feedback with a higher transmission reliability than an acknowledgement (ACK) feedback.
Regarding claim 26, Yang modified by Suh discloses the apparatus of claim 19, but fails to disclose, wherein the corrective signaling comprises a control signal indicating that the retransmission of the first data signal was obtained, and wherein the control signal is obtained via a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH).
Dimou, in the same endeavor, discloses wherein the corrective signaling comprises a control signal indicating that the retransmission of the first data signal was obtained, and wherein the control signal is obtained via a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH). (See Paragraph 0008 stating, a BS may configure a UE with a physical control channel (PUCCH) configuration for transmitting ACK/NACKs. The PUCCH configuration may include a NACK-specific transmission configuration for transmitting NACK transmissions with a higher transmission reliability than ACK transmissions. The NACK transmission configuration may configure the UE to boost transmit powers of NACK transmissions and/or apply multi-beams for NACK transmissions.)
In view of the above, having Yang’s Feedback Error Handling system modified by Suh’s techniques for retransmitting and then given the well- established teaching of Dimou’s techniques for adjusting the power of feedback channel during retransmission using PUSCH, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to further modify Yang’s Feedback Error Handling system as taught by Dimou’s techniques for adjusting the power of feedback channel during retransmission using PUSCH, since Dimou states in paragraph 0002 that the modification results in acknowledgement/negative-acknowledgement (ACK/NACK) transmissions (e.g., hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) ACK/NACK) enabling and providing techniques allowing communication devices (e.g., user equipment devices or base stations) to transmit a negative-acknowledgement (NACK) feedback with a higher transmission reliability than an acknowledgement (ACK) feedback.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 7, limitations reciting “…wherein the first control signal is one of multiple control signals output within a time window, and wherein the corrective signaling is output when a ratio of: (i) a quantity of A2N events associated with the multiple control signals, and (ii) a quantity of the multiple control signals, satisfies a threshold condition.”, would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because these limitations in combination with the remaining limitation(s) and not merely these limitations on their own, of claim 7 is/are not taught nor suggested by the prior art(s) of record in any reasonable combination.
Claim 8, limitations reciting “…wherein the first data signal is one of multiple data signals obtained within a time window, and wherein the corrective signaling is output based on a ratio of: (i) a quantity of A2N events associated with the multiple data signals, and (ii) a quantity of the multiple data signals, satisfying a threshold condition.”, would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because these limitations in combination with the remaining limitation(s) and not merely these limitations on their own, of claim 8 is/are not taught nor suggested by the prior art(s) of record in any reasonable combination.
The closest prior art suggesting the above limitations of claims 7 and 8 is Cave et al (US 20090109937 A1). Cave in paragraph 27 discloses ACK to NACK ratio but not the limitations recited defining ratio in claims 7 and 8 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HABTE MERED whose telephone number is (571)272-6046. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12-10 PM 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, Michael Thier can be reached at 5712722832. 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.
/HABTE MERED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights