DETAILED ACTION
Status of Case
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 5/8/2026.
Claims 7-11 are pending, with claims 1-6 being cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 5/8/2026 with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
However, despite the above, Examiner wishes to note that Applicant has stated that the secondary reference of “Elshafie is completely silent with respect to the repetitions. As such, it logically follows that Elshafie fails to remedy the deficiencies of [primary reference] Wigard to teach the above-mentioned limitations of amended independent claim 7.” (see pages 8-9 of Applicant’s remarks filed on 5/8/2026)
In response, Examiner notes that the claims were rejected via 35 U.S.C. 103 and, as such, the references must be viewed in combination with, and in light of, each other. In this case, Elshafie’s teaching of “deferring the transmission of the acknowledgement response” must be viewed in light of Wigard’s teachings, including the repetitions. Therefore, Applicant’s assertion regarding Elshafie’s lack of teaching of repetitions does not take into account combining Elshafie’s teachings with the teachings of Wigard, which results in Applicant’s claimed invention.
Despite the above remarks, which alone would have been sufficient to maintain the previous rejection, Examiner has changed the grounds of rejection due to Applicant’s correction of the 112(b) rejection, and the new reference more clearly and explicitly discloses the claimed invention.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are “a reception section,” “a transmission section,” and “a control section” in claim 7 and “a transmission section,” “a reception section,” and “a control section” in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wigard (EP3917259A1) in view of Elshafie (USPAN 2022/0078832) and Hosseini (USPAN 2022/0116153).
Consider claims 7, 10, and 11, Wigard discloses a terminal (see figure 1a, reproduced below for convenience, wherein disclosed is said terminal), and a corresponding radio communication method (see paragraph 21, wherein disclosed is said method), and a corresponding radio communication system, comprising: a terminal and a base station (see figure 1a, wherein disclosed is said communication system comprising said terminal and base station) comprising:
a reception section that receives a downlink shared channel, the downlink shared channel being based on semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) (see paragraph 9: NPDSCH (downlink shared channel); see paragraph 14: activation of semi-persistent scheduling (SPS));
a transmission section that transmits an acknowledgement response to the downlink shared channel through an uplink control channel (see paragraph 15: HARQ-ACK transmission); and
a control section that configures stopping transmission of the acknowledgement response, wherein the control section expects, when configuring the stopping of transmission of the acknowledgement response, that repetition of a resource for the uplink control channel is not configured (see paragraph 21: the UE has stopped transmitting data, i.e. stopped ACK/NACK transmission in the case of downlink data transfer and stopped repetitions in the case of uplink data transfer).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Although Wigard discloses stopping the transmission of the acknowledgment response (see above), Wigard does not specifically disclose deferring the transmission of the acknowledgement response.
Elshafie discloses deferring the transmission of the acknowledgement response (see paragraph 19: the UE may defer to delay transmission of HARQ-ACK/NACK feedback until slot 11 when an uplink grant PUCCH occasion arises), and further discloses
receiving a downlink shared channel, the downlink shared channel being based on semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) (see paragraph 19: SPS PDSCH [physical downlink shared channel] occasions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wigard and combine it with the noted teachings of Elshafie. The motivation to combine these references is to provide a method for delay imposed hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) acknowledgement or negative acknowledgement (ACK/NACK) feedback reporting (see paragraph 2 of Elshafie).
Hosseini discloses that deferring of transmission of the acknowledgement response is configured (see paragraph 95: the UE may defer HARQ-ACK by reporting it in a Type-3 codebook).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wigard and combine it with the noted teachings of Hosseini. The motivation to combine these references is to provide an efficient method for reporting feedback based on information received by a base station and an RRC message (see paragraph 6 of Hosseini).
Consider claim 8, Wigard discloses that the reception section receives configuration information on a resource of the uplink control channel (see paragraph 46: the collaboration may be performed when the source cell is aware a new grant is needed for new UL/DL traffic available and derives the grant configuration...Therefore, the source cell may trigger the coordination between source and target cells to determine the possible resource allocation per cell), and a control section that configures stopping transmission of the acknowledgement response, wherein the control section expects, when configuring the stopping of transmission of the acknowledgement response, that repetition of a resource for the uplink control channel is not configured (see paragraph 21: the UE has stopped transmitting data, i.e. stopped ACK/NACK transmission in the case of downlink data transfer and stopped repetitions in the case of uplink data transfer).
Although Wigard discloses stopping the transmission of the acknowledgment response (see above), Wigard does not specifically disclose deferring the transmission of the acknowledgement response.
Elshafie discloses deferring the transmission of the acknowledgement response (see paragraph 19: the UE may defer to delay transmission of HARQ-ACK/NACK feedback until slot 11 when an uplink grant PUCCH occasion arises).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wigard and combine it with the noted teachings of Elshafie. The motivation to combine these references is to provide a method for delay imposed hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) acknowledgement or negative acknowledgement (ACK/NACK) feedback reporting (see paragraph 2 of Elshafie).
Hosseini discloses that deferring of transmission of the acknowledgement response is configured (see paragraph 95: the UE may defer HARQ-ACK by reporting it in a Type-3 codebook).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wigard and combine it with the noted teachings of Hosseini. The motivation to combine these references is to provide an efficient method for reporting feedback based on information received by a base station and an RRC message (see paragraph 6 of Hosseini).
Consider claim 9, Wigard discloses a base station (see figure 1a, reproduced below for convenience, wherein disclosed is said base station), comprising:
a transmission section that transmits a downlink shared channel, the downlink shared channel being based on semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) (see paragraph 9: NPDSCH (downlink shared channel); see paragraph 14: activation of semi-persistent scheduling (SPS));
a reception section that receives an acknowledgement response to the downlink shared channel through an uplink control channel (see paragraph 15: HARQ-ACK transmission); and
a control section that configures stopping transmission of the acknowledgement response, wherein the control section does not configure repetition of a resource for the uplink control channel when configuring the stopping of transmission of the acknowledgement response (see paragraph 21: the UE has stopped transmitting data, i.e. stopped ACK/NACK transmission in the case of downlink data transfer and stopped repetitions in the case of uplink data transfer).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Although Wigard discloses stopping the transmission of the acknowledgment response (see above), Wigard does not specifically disclose deferring the transmission of the acknowledgement response.
Elshafie discloses deferring the transmission of the acknowledgement response (see paragraph 19: the UE may defer to delay transmission of HARQ-ACK/NACK feedback until slot 11 when an uplink grant PUCCH occasion arises), and further discloses
receiving a downlink shared channel, the downlink shared channel being based on semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) (see paragraph 19: SPS PDSCH [physical downlink shared channel] occasions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wigard and combine it with the noted teachings of Elshafie. The motivation to combine these references is to provide a method for delay imposed hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) acknowledgement or negative acknowledgement (ACK/NACK) feedback reporting (see paragraph 2 of Elshafie).
Hosseini discloses that deferring of transmission of the acknowledgement response is configured (see paragraph 95: the UE may defer HARQ-ACK by reporting it in a Type-3 codebook).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wigard and combine it with the noted teachings of Hosseini. The motivation to combine these references is to provide an efficient method for reporting feedback based on information received by a base station and an RRC message (see paragraph 6 of Hosseini).
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jamal Javaid whose telephone number is 571-270-5137 and email address is Jamal.Javaid@uspto.gov.
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, Charles Jiang, can be reached on 571-270-7191. 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).
/JAMAL JAVAID/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights