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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgment is made for the applicant’s response and amendment filed on 06/26/2026.
Remarks
The claims are presented as follows:
Claims 3-4, 12-13, 18-19 and 24-25 are canceled.
Claims 1-2, 5-11, 14-17 and 20-23 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the objection made to claims 9 and 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendment made to the claims. Therefore, the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection made to claims 9 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendment made to the claims. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5-11, 14-17, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN et al. Publication No. (US 2022/0393803 A1) in view of Ye et al. Publication No. (US 2022/0109529 A1).
Regarding claim 1, CHEN teaches a method for codebook feedback, performed by a terminal (terminal device FIG.1), the method comprising:
sending capability information, wherein the capability information indicates a Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) codebook configuration capability (the access network device configures a downlink slot that needs HARQ feedback and a downlink slot that does not need HARQ feed-back and sends codebook indication to the terminal, the terminal determines a plurality of downlink slots available for data transmission corresponding to an uplink slot and reports its capability information to the access network device [0254-257] FIG.19A) when there are feedback-disabled HARQ processes (the codebook indication information indicating a process number is corresponding to an enabled HARQ process or the process number corresponding to a disabled HARQ process [0263] S304 FIG.16); and
obtaining HARQ codebook configuration information configured by a network device (access network device FIG.1) for the terminal based on the capability information (The access network device configures a downlink slot that needs HARQ feedback and sends a codebook process indication information to the terminal [0259-260] S303 FIG.19A); and
generating a HARQ codebook based on the HARQ codebook configuration information (The terminal performs decoding on a plurality of downlink slots of the uplink slot, and determines a process number to which data transmitted through the downlink slots belongs. If the process number is corresponding to an enabled HARQ process, generate HARQ feedback information (an ACK or an NACK); and if the process number is a process number corresponding to a disabled HARQ process, do not generate HARQ feedback information [0262-263] FIG.19A).
CHEN does not explicitly teach the HARQ codebook configuration capability comprises a HARQ codebook configuration capability with enhancement or a HARQ codebook configuration capability without enhancement, and directly embedding a Negative Acknowledgement, NACK, value for the feedback-disabled HARQ processes in the HARQ codebook.
Ye teaches the HARQ codebook configuration capability comprises a HARQ codebook configuration capability with enhancement or a HARQ codebook configuration capability without enhancement, and directly embedding a Negative Acknowledgement, NACK, value for the feedback-disabled HARQ processes in the HARQ codebook (Ye: configuration and enhancements for HARQ-ACK information disabling, specifically the detailed configuration method for HARQ-ACK information disabling, and the enhancements for HARQ-ACK codebook and DCI design, that can be applied to scenarios with disabled HARQ-ACK information [0073-79] FIGS. 9A and 9B illustrate Type-1 HARQ-ACK codebook enhancements, where A/N corresponds to HARQ processes with enabled HARQ-ACK information, For a Type-3 HARQ-ACK codebook, a UE can report HARQ-ACK information with a predetermined value, such as a NACK value, for HARQ processes with disabled HARQ-ACK information, while the codebook size can remain independent of whether there is enabling or disabling of HARQ processes and include HARQ-ACK information for all HARQ processes [0103-107] a UE can report HARQ-ACK information based on a reception outcome of a corresponding TB. This may help gNB to perform link adaptation, for example by determining a ratio of NACK values to ACK values that is typically used for open loop link adaptation. [0113-118]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified CHEN by the teaching of Ye to include the universal mobile telecommunications system when transferring data between a server and a mobile node in order to avoid HARQ stalling (Ye: [0087-88]).
Regarding claim 2, CHEN teaches the method according to claim 1, in response to the capability information indicating that the terminal supports a first codebook configuration mode, the HARQ codebook configuration information comprises first HARQ codebook configuration information, and the first HARQ codebook configuration information is used for configuring the terminal to configure the HARQ codebook in the first codebook configuration mode; or the HARQ codebook configuration information comprises second HARQ codebook configuration information, and the second HARQ codebook configuration information is used for configuring the terminal to configure the HARQ codebook in a second codebook configuration mode; and the first codebook configuration mode is an enhancement of the second codebook configuration mode (the access network device may explicitly or implicitly indicate, to the terminal by using specified indication information, whether HARQ feedback is needed for a transmit block transmitted in a plurality of downlink transmission units. The terminal determines, based on the indication information, which downlink transmission units need HARQ feedback and which downlink transmission units do not need HARQ feedback, and generates a semi-static codebook or a dynamic codebook based on HARQ feedback information of the downlink transmission units that need HARQ feedback [0240-241] FIG.16).
Claims 3-4. (Canceled).
Regarding claim 5, the modified CHEN teaches the method according to claim 1,wherein the HARQ codebook is one of a plurality of types of HARQ codebooks (Ye: three types of codebooks: Type-1, Type-2, and Type-3 HARQ-ACK codebooks [0074-77]), and sending the capability information comprises: sending first capability information, wherein the first capability information is information dedicated to indicating the HARQ codebook configuration capability of the terminal for the HARQ codebook (The terminal determines HARQ bitmap information based on the indication information, where the HARQ bitmap information includes HARQ feedback information of at least one target transmission unit, and the target transmission unit indicates a downlink transmission unit that needs HARQ feedback in the plurality of downlink transmission units. The terminal sends the HARQ bitmap information to the access network device [0237-238] FIG.20).
Regarding claim 6, CHEN teaches the method according to claim 1,wherein sending the capability information comprises: sending second capability information, wherein the second capability information comprises information indicating the HARQ codebook configuration capability of the terminal for the HARQ codebook, and other information different from the information indicating the HARQ codebook configuration capability for the HARQ codebook (access network device properly configures downlink transmission slots for data transmission that needs HARQ feedback and a downlink transmission slot for data transmission that does not need HARQ feedback (slot configuration for short), and explicitly or implicitly indicates the slot configuration by using specified indication information. When generating a semi-static codebook, the terminal does not directly feed-back the codebook based on all downlink transmission slots, but needs to feed back the codebook by using an enabled HARQ process or a disabled HARQ process indicated by the access network device or by using a slot configuration indicated by the access network device [0144-145] FIG.16).
Regarding claim 7, CHEN teaches the method according to claim 1,wherein the HARQ codebook is a semi-static HARQ codebook (the terminal generates a semi-static codebook based on HARQ feedback information of the downlink transmission units that need HARQ feedback [0241] FIG.16).
Regarding claim 8, CHEN teaches the method according to claim 7, further comprising: receiving Downlink Assignment Index (DAI) indication information (the indication information includes downlink assignment indicator (DAI) information [0213] FIG.15).
Regarding claim 9, CHEN teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein: in response to the HARQ codebook configuration information being the first HARQ codebook configuration information, while the terminal does not receive any Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) scheduled by the feedback-enabled HARQ processes, the terminal still generates the HARQ codebook based on the DAI indication information (The terminal sequentially performs DCI decoding on each slot in Mc, and checks control information (DCI) of data transmitted in a slot. If it is found that a HARQ process number indicated by the control information corresponds to a disabled HARQ process, Ma is updated, that is, the slot is removed from Ma. If it is found that the HARQ process number indicated by the control information corresponds to a not disabled HARQ process, Ma is not updated in this case, and data PDSCH decoding continues to be performed [0268-269] FIG.15).
Claims 12-13. (Canceled).
Regarding claims 10-11, 14-17 and 23, the independent claim and each dependent claim are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 1-2, 5-19, 22 and 24, respectively. wherein the difference used is the limitations were presented from a “method in the network device” side and the wordings of the claims were interchanged within the claim itself or some of the claims were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claims and interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to these claims. Therefore these claims were rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claims 18-19. (Canceled).
Regarding claim 20, related to the same limitation set for hereinabove claim 1, where the difference used is the limitations were presented from the “terminal device” side with a processor and memory (CHEN: FIG.24) and wordings of the claim were interchanged within the claim itself or were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claim and interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to this claim. Therefore this claim was rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 21, related to the same limitation set for hereinabove claim 1, where the difference used is the limitations were presented from the “network device” side with a processor and memory (CHEN: FIG.25) and wordings of the claim were interchanged within the claim itself or were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claim and interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to this claim. Therefore this claim was rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 22, CHEN teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein when the instructions are executed by a processor of a terminal, the terminal is caused to execute the method for codebook feedback according to claim 1 (a computer-readable non-volatile storage medium, including computer instructions. The computer instructions are executed to implement the method described [0077-80] FIG.24).
Claims 24-25 (cancelled).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDELNABI O MUSA whose telephone number is (571)270-1901, and email address is abdelnabi.musa@uspto.gov ‘preferred’. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Bates, can be reached on 571-2723980. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/ABDELNABI O MUSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights