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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/27/2024 and 9/22/2025 have been entered and considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claims 3 and 7, the claims do not end in a period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claims 1, 5, 9, and 10, the claims recite “at least one Round-Trip Time (RTT) timer related to at least one HARQ process, for which a corresponding RTT timer and a corresponding retransmission timer not being running, is started.” Separately recited claim limitations such as “at least one Round-Trip Time (RTT) timer” and “a corresponding RTT timer” are typically interpreted as different claim limitations, but the “corresponding” language appears as though “at least one Round-Trip Time (RTT) timer” and “a corresponding RTT timer” may be referring to the same RTT timer (i.e., a single RTT timer). It is therefore unclear if the claims are potentially directed to starting a single RTT timer that was not previously running, or if the claims are directed to the use of at least two different RTT timers wherein the first RTT timer (i.e., “at least one Round-Trip Time (RTT) timer”) is required to be started based on a second RTT timer (i.e., “a corresponding RTT timer”) not being running. Claims 1, 5, 9, and 10 are thus indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, the Examiner will interpret “at least one Round-Trip Time (RTT) timer” as potentially being the same timer as “a corresponding RTT timer.” Regarding claims 3 and 7, the claims recite “the at least one HARQ-ACK response of the at least one HARQ process,” which lacks antecedent basis. Claims 2 and 6 (from which claims 3 and 7 depend) instead recite “HARQ-ACK responses of the plurality of HARQ processes.” It is unclear if “the at least one HARQ-ACK response of the at least one HARQ process” was intended to recite “the HARQ-ACK responses of the plurality of HARQ processes,” or if such claim language is intended to refer to a previously unrecited subset of “HARQ-ACK responses of the plurality of HARQ processes” or to some other previously unrecited HARQ-ACK response. Claims 3 and 7 are thus indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, the Examiner will interpret “the at least one HARQ-ACK response of the at least one HARQ process” as potentially referring to at least one of the previously recited “HARQ-ACK responses of the plurality of HARQ processes.” Regarding claims 2-4 and 6-8, the claims are rejected because they depend from rejected claims.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ozturk et al. (US 2023/0084318, Ozturk hereinafter, support for cited subject matter exists in provisional application No. 63/245,085, filed on Sep. 16, 2021). Regarding claims 1, 5, 9, and 10, Ozturk teaches a method, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (Memory storing data and program codes; Ozturk; Fig. 2; [0051]), a user equipment (UE) (User equipment (UE); Ozturk; Fig. 2; [0047]), and an apparatus for a user equipment (UE) (User equipment (UE); Ozturk; Fig. 2; [0047]), the apparatus comprising: at least one processor (The UE may be comprised of a processor; Ozturk; Fig. 2; [0051]); and at least one computer memory operably connectable to the at least one processor and storing instructions (The UE may be comprised of a memory storing data and program codes that is operably connectable to the processor; Ozturk; Fig. 2; [0051]) that, when executed, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: receiving a One-shot Hybrid Automatic Repeat and request (HARQ)-acknowledgement (ACK) request message related to a plurality of HARQ processes from a network (As can be seen in at least step 702 of Fig. 7, a request for one shot HARQ feedback for multiple HARQ processes may be received; Ozturk; Fig. 7; [0080]-[0082]); transmitting a One-shot HARQ-ACK related to the plurality of HARQ processes to the network (As can be seen in at least step 704 of Fig. 7, the one shot HARQ feedback may be transmitted to the network entity; Ozturk; Fig. 7; [0080]-[0082]), wherein at least one Round-Trip Time (RTT) timer related to at least one HARQ process, for which a corresponding RTT timer and a corresponding retransmission timer not being running, is started upon transmitting the One-shot HARQ-ACK (As can be seen in at least step 706 of Fig. 7, a DRX HARQ round trip time (RTT) timer may be started for one of the HARQ processes after transmitting the one shot HARQ feedback. Because the timer is described as being started, such a timer (i.e., a corresponding RTT timer) may be interpreted as not being running. Furthermore, at least paragraph [0082] states that a potential condition for starting the DRX timer may also include a DRX retransmission time having expired (i.e., a corresponding retransmission timer not being running); Ozturk; Fig. 7; [0080]-[0082]); starting at least one retransmission timer based on the at least one RTT timer expiring (As is discussed in conjunction with at least Fig. 4, after the RTT timer expires, the UE may awaken from the sleep mode to receive a retransmission (ReTx) and a retransmission timer starts. The UE may thus be interpreted as starting at least one retransmission timer based on the at least one RTT timer expiring; Ozturk; Figs. 4 and 7; [0067], [0080]-[0082]); and monitoring at least one Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) for the at least one HARQ process during the at least one retransmission timer is running (The retransmission timer specifies a number of slots the UE remains active to wait for incoming retransmissions after a first available retransmission time. The UE may thus be interpreted as monitoring at least one Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) for the at least one HARQ process during the at least one retransmission timer is running; Ozturk; Figs. 4 and 7; [0067], [0080]-[0082]). Regarding claims 2 and 6, Ozturk teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 5 respectively. Ozturk further teaches the One-shot HARQ-ACK related to the plurality of HARQ processes comprises HARQ-ACK responses of the plurality of HARQ processes (The One-shot HARQ-ACK related to the plurality of HARQ processes comprises HARQ-ACK responses of the plurality of HARQ processes; Ozturk; Fig. 7; [0080]-[0082]). Regarding claims 3 and 7, Ozturk teaches the limitations of claims 2 and 6 respectively. Ozturk further teaches the at least one retransmission timer is started based on the at least one RTT timer expiring (As is discussed in conjunction with at least Fig. 4, after the RTT timer expires, the UE may awaken from the sleep mode to receive a retransmission (ReTx) and a retransmission timer starts. The UE may thus be interpreted as starting at least one retransmission timer based on the at least one RTT timer expiring; Ozturk; Figs. 4 and 7; [0067], [0080]-[0082]) and based on the at least one HARQ-ACK response of the at least one HARQ process being negative acknowledgement (NACK) (As can be seen in at least Fig. 4, the retransmission timer may also be started based on at least one HARQ-ACK response being negative acknowledgement (NACK); Ozturk; Figs. 4 and 7; [0067], [0080]-[0082]). Regarding claims 4 and 8, Ozturk teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 5 respectively. Ozturk further teaches a RTT timer related to a specific HARQ process, for which there is no downlink transmission, is not started when the One-shot HARQ-ACK is transmitted, although a RTT timer for the specific HARQ process and a retransmission timer for the specific HARQ process are not running (As can be seen in at least step 706 of Fig. 7, a DRX HARQ round trip time (RTT) timer may be started for one of the HARQ processes after transmitting the one shot HARQ feedback. Such a HARQ RTT timer related to one shot HARQ feedback may be interpreted as not being a specific RTT timer to a specific HARQ process. Because only the HARQ RTT timer related to one shot HARQ feedback is described as being started, an RTT timer related to a specific HARQ process for which there is no downlink transmission may be interpreted as not being started; Ozturk; Fig. 7; [0080]-[0082]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC A MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30am to 7:00pm.
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.
/ERIC MYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474