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 .
Applicant's response filed 5/2/2026 is acknowledged.
No claim is amended.
Response to Amendment
Response filed on 5/2/2026 are entered for prosecution. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. The amendments change the scopes of the previously presented claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1 and 11 (pages 8-10) in a reply filed 5/2/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 11:
In the remarks, Applicant contends, in page 8, that “Rastegardoost fails to disclose that the RRC configuration is used as a functional switch to enable the specific operation of multiple enhanced type-3 codebooks, nor does it disclose the dynamic selection among multiple pre-configured codebook entities via a DCI.”, and, in page 9, that “In contrast, the claimed application explicitly requires that the RRC configuration includes "first information" used to "enable" the "operation" of multiple enhanced Type-3 codebooks. This serves as a functional switch; without this first information, the apparatus would not possess the capability to concurrently operate multiple enhanced Type-3 codebooks. Furthermore, while Rastegardoost refers generally to generic codebooks, the present application is specifically limited to "enhanced Type-3" codebooks which employ specific size-reduction logic (e.g., excluding inactive cells) to optimize signaling.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Rastegardoost teaches wherein the dynamic codebook may be used to address the issue with the potentially large size of the semi-static codebook (see, Rastegardoost: para. [0229]) and the base station (BS) may configure a UE with enhanced dynamic codebook for HARQ feedback operation (see, Rastegardoost: para. [0230]). In para. [0299] of Rastegardoost teaches wherein the RRC configuration is used to indicate whether a Type 3 is configured/enabled or not (see, Rastegardoost: para. [0293], “a wireless device may receive one or more RRC message from a base station. The one or more RRC messages may comprise configuration parameters …”; para. [0299], “The configuration parameters may indicate whether a one-shot HARQ-ACK (Type 3) is configured/enabled or not (e.g., pdsch-HARQ-ACK-OneShotFeedback-r16). For example, when configured, a DCI (e.g., DCI_format 1_1) may request the UE to report HARQ-ACK for all HARQ processes and all component carriers (CCs) configured in the PUCCH group. For example, the configuration parameters may indicate that a one-shot (Type 3) or an enhanced one-shot (eType 3) codebook is configured. For example, when enhanced one-shot codebook is configured, the DCI may request the UE to report HARQ-ACK for a subset of HARQ processes and/or a subset of CCs.”).
Applicant further contends, in page 9, that “Moreover, Rastegardoost in paragraphs [0250] and [0353] merely describes a DCI triggering "a single" codebook containing a "subset" of HARQ processes, representing a content definition for a single transmission. In contrast, the present application requires the DCI to "indicate one of' multiple configured enhanced Type-3 codebooks. This involves dynamic switching between multiple independent codebook entities configured in parallel at the RRC level. Rastegardoost fails to disclose selecting a specific one from a plurality of configured codebooks using a specific bit-field in the DCI format under a "multi-codebook operation mode." Rastegardoost also does not teach the specific two-stage mechanism where the "operation of multiple codebooks is enabled" by RRC, followed by the "indication of one of them" by DCI.” (Emphasis added by the Examiner).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In para. [0341] of Rastegardoost teaches wherein the RRC configuration is used to indicate whether a Type 3 is configured/enabled or not (see, Rastegardoost: para. [0341], “the UE may receive an RRC message comprising parameters indicating that a first HARQ codebook (e.g., enhanced Type 2 CB and/or enhanced Type 3 CB) is configured. For example, multiple applicable HARQ-ACK (sub-)codebooks may be configured if a first codebook is configured. In an example, each HARQ codebook may be associated with a subset of HARQ processes. In an example, each HARQ codebook may be associated with a subset of cells/serving cells. In an example, each HARQ codebook may be associated with a subset of PHY priorities and/or PDSCH groups. In an example, each HARQ codebook may be associated with a subset of SPS PDSCH configurations. A DCI … triggering a HARQ feedback transmission may indicate the applicable/associated HARQ (sub-)codebook from the multiple configured HARQ (sub-)codebooks.”). Rastegardoost teaches the DCI indicating an applicable/specific HARQ codebook from the multiple configured HARQ codebooks.
Accordingly, Rastegardoost teaches the specific two-stage mechanism where the "operation of multiple codebooks is enabled" by RRC, followed by the "indication of one of them" by DCI.”. Therefore, the disclosure of Rastegardoost reads on the limitations as claimed.
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, 14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rastegardoost et al. (US 2024/0072975 A1, hereinafter Rastegardoost) claiming benefit to and fully-supported by US provisional applications 63/185,132 filed on May 6, 2021.
Regarding claim 1:
Rastegardoost teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by a processor of an apparatus, a radio resource control (RRC) configuration from a network node, wherein the RRC configuration comprises first information indicating that an operation of multiple enhanced type-3 hybrid automatic repeat request-acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) codebooks is enabled (see, Rastegardoost: para. [0293], “a wireless device may receive one or more RRC message from a base station. The one or more RRC messages may comprise configuration parameters …”; para. [0299], “The configuration parameters may indicate whether a one-shot HARQ-ACK (Type 3) is configured/enabled or not (e.g., pdsch-HARQ-ACK-OneShotFeedback-r16). For example, when configured, a DCI (e.g., DCI_format 1_1) may request the UE to report HARQ-ACK for all HARQ processes and all component carriers (CCs) configured in the PUCCH group. For example, the configuration parameters may indicate that a one-shot (Type 3) or an enhanced one-shot (eType 3) codebook is configured. For example, when enhanced one-shot codebook is configured, the DCI may request the UE to report HARQ-ACK for a subset of HARQ processes and/or a subset of CCs.”); Fig. 25 and para. [0352], “the UE may receive an RRC message configurating multiple (M) applicable HARQ-ACK codebooks (e.g., enhanced Type 3 codebooks).”, supports are found in para. [0275] [0281]; Fig. 25; and para. [0334] of 63/185,132.);
receiving, by the processor, a downlink control information (DCI) format from the network node, wherein the DCI format indicates one of the multiple enhanced type-3 HARQ-ACK codebooks (see, Rastegardoost: para. [0250], “The base station may transmit a DCI requesting/triggering HARQ feedback of a HARQ-ACK codebook (e.g., Type-3 codebook or enhanced Type-3 codebook) containing all or a subset of DL HARQ processes (e.g., one-shot feedback request).”; para. [0341], “A DCI … triggering a HARQ feedback transmission may indicate the applicable/associated HARQ (sub-)codebook from the multiple configured HARQ (sub-)codebooks.”); Fig. 25 and para. [0353], “the UE may receive DCI-2 indicating two PUCCH resources for HARQ feedback transmission.”, supports are found in para. [0232], [0323], Fig. 25, and para. [0335] of 63/185,132.); and
reporting, by the processor, HARQ feedback information to the network node based on the one of the multiple enhanced type-3 HARQ-ACK codebooks (see, Rastegardoost: para. [0251], “The wireless device may transmit HARQ feedback of one or more PDSCHs in response to receiving a one-shot feedback request.”; Fig. 25 and para. [0035], “the UE may transmit the pending HARQ feedback information via the second PUCCH in response to determining that the pending HARQ feedback information and the second PUCCH are associated with a same/overlapped applicable codebook configured by RRC.”, supports are found in para. [0233], Fig. 25 and para. [0335] of 63/185,132.).
Regarding claim 4:
As discussed above, Rastegardoost teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Rastegardoost further teaches wherein the DCI format is a DCI format 1_1 or a DCI format 1_2 (see, Rastegardoost: para. [0252], “The wireless device may be configured to monitor feedback request for one-shot HARQ-ACK codebook feedback. The feedback may be requested in a DCI format (e.g., DCI format 1_1).”, support is found in para. [0234] of 63/185,132.).
Regarding claim 8:
As discussed above, Rastegardoost teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Rastegardoost further teaches wherein each of the multiple enhanced type-3 HARQ-ACK codebooks has a respective size that is equal to or smaller than that of a Rel-16 type-3 HARQ-ACK codebook (see, Rastegardoost: para. [0299], “The configuration parameters may indicate whether a one-shot HARQ-ACK (Type 3) is configured/enabled or not (e.g., pdsch-HARQ-ACK-OneShotFeedback-r16). For example, when configured, a DCI (e.g., DCI_format 1_1) may request the UE to report HARQ-ACK for all HARQ processes and all component carriers (CCs) configured in the PUCCH group. For example, the configuration parameters may indicate that a one-shot (Type 3) or an enhanced one-shot (eType 3) codebook is configured. For example, when enhanced one-shot codebook is configured, the DCI may request the UE to report HARQ-ACK for a subset of HARQ processes and/or a subset of CCs.”; para. [0341], “the UE may receive an RRC message comprising parameters indicating that a first HARQ codebook (e.g., enhanced Type 2 CB and/or enhanced Type 3 CB) is configured. For example, multiple applicable HARQ-ACK (sub-)codebooks may be configured if a first codebook is configured. In an example, each HARQ codebook may be associated with a subset of HARQ processes. In an example, each HARQ codebook may be associated with a subset of cells/serving cells. In an example, each HARQ codebook may be associated with a subset of PHY priorities and/or PDSCH groups. In an example, each HARQ codebook may be associated with a subset of SPS PDSCH configurations. A DCI scheduling a PDSCH and/or triggering a HARQ feedback transmission may indicate the applicable/associated HARQ (sub-)codebook from the multiple configured HARQ (sub-)codebooks.” Accordingly, multiple configured HARQ-ACK (sub-)codebooks has a respective size that is equal or smaller than a type-3 HARQ-ACK codebook. Supports are found in para. [0281] [0323] of 63/185,132.).
Regarding claim 9:
As discussed above, Rastegardoost teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Rastegardoost further teaches wherein sizes of the multiple enhanced type-3 HARQ-ACK codebooks are determined based on at least one of the following: a set of cells configured by the network node; and a set of HARQ processes configured by the network node (see, Rastegardoost: para. [0341], “multiple applicable HARQ-ACK (sub-)codebooks may be configured if a first codebook is configured. In an example, each HARQ codebook may be associated with a subset of HARQ processes. In an example, each HARQ codebook may be associated with a subset of cells/serving cells. In an example, each HARQ codebook may be associated with a subset of PHY priorities and/or PDSCH groups. In an example, each HARQ codebook may be associated with a subset of SPS PDSCH configurations.”, Support is found in para. [0323] of 63/185,132.).
Regarding claim 11:
Claim 11 is directed towards an apparatus (see, Rastegardoost: Fig. 15, Wireless Device 1502, support is found in Fig. 15 of 63/185,132.), comprising: a transceiver (see, Rastegardoost: Fig. 15, TX Processing System 1520 & RX Processing System 1522, support is found in Fig. 15 of 63/185,132.); and a processor (see, Rastegardoost: Fig. 15, Processing System 1518 and para. [0207], supports are found in Fig. 15 and para. [0189] of 63/185,132.) communicatively coupled to the transceiver such that, during operation, the processor performs the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 14:
Claim 14 is directed towards the apparatus of claim 11 that is further limited to similar features to claim 4. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 is directed towards the apparatus of claim 11 that is further limited to similar features to claim 8. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 is directed towards the apparatus of claim 11 that is further limited to similar features to claim 9. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 9 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 3, 5-7, 10, 12, 13, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastegardoost in view of Liu (US 2024/0388408 A1, hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 2:
As discussed above, Rastegardoost teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Rastegardoost does not explicitly teach wherein transmitting, by the processor, a UE capability information to the network node, wherein the UE capability information indicates a maximum number of enhanced type-3 HARQ-ACK codebooks supported by the UE.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu teaches wherein transmitting, by the processor, a UE capability information to the network node, wherein the UE capability information indicates a maximum number of enhanced type-3 HARQ-ACK codebooks supported by the UE (see, Liu: Fig. 6; para. [0095], “the terminal sends a UE capability message to the access network device, and the UE capability message is used to indicate the UE caching capability of the terminal, that is, the upper limit on the number of HARQ-ACKs cached by the terminal.”; para. [0096], “the UE reports the maximum HARQ-ACK cache value of the terminal, e.g., one feedback is required for up to M decoding results, then the access network device triggers the feedback of the enhanced Type 3 HARQ-ACK codebook specifically for SPS PDSCH with a 1-bit indication of the DCI before the cache value is exceeded.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Rastegardoost in combination of the teachings of Liu in order to indicate UE caching capability of the terminal to the network device (see, Liu: Fig. 6 and para. [0095-0096] [0153]).
Regarding claim 3:
As discussed above, Rastegardoost in view of Liu teaches all limitations in claim 2.
Liu further teaches wherein the RRC configuration comprises second information configuring a number of the multiple enhanced type-3 HARQ-ACK codebooks, and the number of the multiple enhanced type-3 HARQ-ACK codebooks is less than or equal to the maximum number of enhanced type-3 HARQ-ACK codebooks supported by the UE (see, Liu: para. [0123], “The access network device triggers the enhanced Type-3 codebook with a 1-bit indication of the DCI before the caching capability value M is exceeded”).
Regarding claim 5:
As discussed above, Rastegardoost in view of Liu teaches all limitations in claim 3.
Rastegardoost further teaches wherein the DCI format comprises a bit-field (e.g., one-shot HARQ-ACK request field in a DCI) indicating the one of the multiple enhanced type-3 HARQ-ACK codebooks (see, Rastegardoost: para. [0240], “if enhanced dynamic HARQ-ACK codebook is configured, a DCI (e.g., DCI format 1_1) may indicate a number of requested groups by one bit.”, support is found in para. [0222] of 63/185,132.), and a size of the bit-field is RRC configured or determined based on the number of the configured multiple enhanced type-3 HARQ-ACK codebooks (see, Rastegardoost: para. [0250], The base station may transmit a DCI requesting/triggering HARQ feedback of a HARQ-ACK codebook (e.g., Type-3 codebook or enhanced Type-3 codebook) containing all or a subset of DL HARQ processes (e.g., one-shot feedback request). The one-shot feedback request may be for all or a subset of component carriers configured for the UE. One-shot feedback may be configured separately from a HARQ-ACK codebook configuration.”, support is found in para. [0232] of 63/185,132.).
Regarding claim 6:
As discussed above, Rastegardoost in view of Liu teaches all limitations in claim 5.
Rastegardoost further teaches wherein the bit-field is a new bit-field (e.g., one-shot HARQ-ACK request field in a DCI) dedicated for indicating the one of the multiple enhanced type-3 HARQ-ACK codebooks (see, Rastegardoost: para. [0240], “if enhanced dynamic HARQ-ACK codebook is configured, a DCI (e.g., DCI format 1_1) may indicate a number of requested groups by one bit.”, support is found in para. [0222] of 63/185,132.).
Regarding claim 7:
As discussed above, Rastegardoost in view of Liu teaches all limitations in claim 5.
Rastegardoost further teaches wherein the bit-field is a frequency domain resource allocation (FDRA) bit-field or another existing bit-field reused to indicate the one of the multiple enhanced type-3 HARQ-ACK codebooks, in a case that the DCI format does not schedule a PDSCH (see, Rastegardoost: para. [0252], “The DCI format may or may not schedule DL transmission (e.g., PDSCH). The DCI format may comprise a first field (e.g., a frequency domain resource allocation field) indicating a first value. The UE may determine that the DCI format does not schedule a PDSCH in response to the first field indicating the first value. The UE may ignore/discard one or more second fields of the DCI format (e.g., a HARQ process number and/or NDI field) in response to the determining. The UE may be scheduled to report one-shot feedback and one or more other HARQ-ACK feedbacks in a same slot/subframe/resource, and the UE may report only the one-shot feedback.”, support is found in para. [0222] of 63/185,132.).
Regarding claim 10:
As discussed above, Rastegardoost teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Rastegardoost does not explicitly teach wherein sizes of the multiple enhanced type-3 HARQ-ACK codebooks are explicitly configured to the UE by the network node.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu teaches wherein sizes of the multiple enhanced type-3 HARQ-ACK codebooks are explicitly configured to the UE by the network node (see, Liu: para. [0033], “The size of the enhanced Type 3 HARQ-ACK codebook is not flexible and can be activated by the RRC configuration. Also, M RRC-applicable enhanced Type 3 HARQ-ACK codebooks can be configured by the Radio Resource Control (RRC) based on dynamic DCI indication, with M being a positive integer, e.g., enhanced Type 3 HARQ-ACK codebooks for different subset of cells, for different HARQ processes, and specifically for SPS PDSCH, and one of the codebooks are selected by the dynamic DCI.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Rastegardoost in combination of the teachings of Liu in order to use RRC signaling to configure M RRC-applicable enhanced Type 3 HARQ-ACK codebooks (see, Liu: para. [0033]).
Regarding claim 12:
Claim 12 is directed towards the apparatus of claim 11 that is further limited to similar features to claim 2. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 13:
Claim 13 is directed towards the apparatus of claim 12 that is further limited to similar features to claim 3. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 is directed towards the apparatus of claim 13 that is further limited to similar features to claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 is directed towards the apparatus of claim 15 that is further limited to similar features to claim 6. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 is directed towards the apparatus of claim 15 that is further limited to similar features to claim 7. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 is directed towards the apparatus of claim 11 that is further limited to similar features to claim 10. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 10 above.
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 JI-HAE YEA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3310. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI, 7am-3pm, ET.
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, SUJOY K KUNDU can be reached on (571) 272-8586. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JI-HAE YEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights