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 .
Response to Amendment
This communication is considered fully responsive to the amendment filed on 06/12/2026.
Claims 37, 38 and 55 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are deemed unpersuasive.
The applicant’s arguments assert that “Hosseini does not teach indicating a dependency between later transmitted and earlier transmitted allocation, deriving the dependency from transmission parameters, or using flag information in an earlier transmission to indicate such dependency.” None of these limitations – dependency, transmission-parameter derivation, flag information – are recited in claim 37. They first appear in dependent claims 38-44, which are separately rejected and separately argued. Per MPEP 2145, rebuttal arguments must be evaluated against what the claim actually recites; arguments directed to unclaimed features do not undermine a prima facie showing on the cla(im before the Office. Because claim 37 requires only (i) a single DCI, (ii) scheduling one or more DL/UL control channel allocations, and (iii) one or more of fie alternatives shared-channel/CG allocation types transmitted to the UE, the applicant’s dependency-based argument is irrelevant to claim 37’s rejection.
Stripped of the dependency argument, the applicant’s substantive point reduces to: Husseini’s disclosures is “general” and doesn’t disclose the “presently claimed single-DCI architecture”. This is precisely the type of bare assertion MPEP 2145 instructs examiners to discount – attorney argument absent factual or evidentiary grounding as to why the specific claimed combination (a single DCI, from Wu, scheduling a dynamically-labeled shared channel application, from Hosseini) would not have been achievable. The applicant arguments do not explain why substituting Hosseini’s generic dynamic-PDSCH/DCI-triggered-resource-assignment teaching into Wu’s already-DCI-driven PDSCH/PUCCH scheduling structure would be technically incompatible or would fail to yield a predictable result.
Wu already discloses a base station generating a single DCI element that includes a PUCCH resource assignment together with a PDSCH assignment, transmitted over PDCCH to a UE – i.e., a single DCI scheduling both a control channel allocation and a shared channel allocation. Hosseini confirms that in the art, PDSCH scheduling is either “dynamic” or “semi-persistent”. Substituting the “dynamic” label/mode onto Wu’s already-DCI-scheduled PDSCH is a straightforward application of a known scheduling mode to a known DCI-based assignment structure: applying a known technique (dynamic vs. SPS PDSCH scheduling) to a known device/method (Wu’s DCI-based grant scheme) to yield a predictable result.
Because the central rebuttal of the applicant’s arguments for claim 37 imports limitations (dependency, flags) not actually recited in that claim, and the remaining arguments are conclusory, the examiner’s prima facie case – resting on a permissible combination of two analogous, same-field DCI/PDSCH scheduling references – should be sustained. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments overall are deemed unpersuasive.
The applicant’s arguments assert that claim 38, “read as a whole”, clearly identifies “at least one of (a) … and (b)… on the one hand” versus “at least one other of (a) … and (b) … on the other hand”, and that this would be “readily understood by a skilled person”. But this rebuttal essentially restates the claim language back at the examiner rather than resolving the actual ambiguity – it doesn’t explain which specific allocation type depends on which other specific allocation type; it just repeats that “at least one” of a broad group depends on “at least one other” of the same broad group. That restatement does not eliminate the combinatorial ambiguity the examiner flagged. The claim amendment itself was purely a typographical fix, not a substantive clarification of the dependency relationship. So the applicant’s position – that no substantive amendment was needed because the language was “already clear” – is not well supported by the amendment actually made, which fixed a typo rather than adding any structural clarity.
Examiner’s Note
The instant application recites “and/or” in the claims. For the purpose of examination, a conjunction “or” is selected.
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.
Claim(s) 38-42 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 38, said claim recites “at least one of the one or more DL and/or UL control channel allocations and the one or more of the one or more dynamic DL shared channel allocations and/or the one or more dynamic UL shared channel allocations and/or the one or more UL CG allocations has a dependency on at least one other of [the same enumerated group]”.
This limitation is indefinite because it fails to identify, with reasonable certainty, which specific allocation type within the recited group depends on which other specific allocation type within that same group. Specifically, claim 38 defines two broad, multi-member sets: Set 1: [DL control channel allocation, UL control channel allocation], Set 2: [dynamic DL shared channel allocation, dynamic UL shared channel allocation, UL CG allocation].
The claim then states that “at least one” member drawn from the union of Set 1 and Set 2 “has a dependency on at least one other” member drawn from the same union. Because the claim uses “at least one … at least one other” rather than identifying specific members, it reads on every possible pairing among the five enumerated allocation types – for example: DL control channel allocation depending on UL CG allocation; UL control channel allocation depending on dynamic DL shared channel allocation; dynamic UL shared channel allocation depending on dynamic DL shared channel allocation; and so on for remaining permutations.
A person of ordinary skill can’t determine from the claim language: Which allocation type is the “dependent” one and which is the one it depends on (the claim does not establish directionality), and Which of the many possible pairings among the five enumerated allocation types is actually being claimed since the “at least one … at least one other” language does not exclude any pairing.
Regarding claims 39-44 and 49, said claims depend from claim 38 directly or indirectly, thus carry the same indefiniteness issues as discussed above, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds discussed 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.
Claim(s) 37-41, 44-45, 47, 50-55 and 56 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2022/0174748, “Wu”) in view of Hosseini et al. (US 2022/0116153, “Hosseini”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Wu unless otherwise mentioned.
Wu comprises the following features:
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim 37, a method performed in a radio access network (RAN) node of a wireless network, comprising:
determining for a single downlink control information (DCI) to schedule one or more downlink (DL) and/or uplink (UL) control channel allocations and one or more of: one or more dynamic DL shared channel allocations ([0126] “At block 1206, the base station 104 generates a DCI element which assigns a PDSCH resource and a control channel resource (e.g., a PUCCH resource).” Note that “dynamic DL” will be discussed in view of Hosseini.), and/or
one or more dynamic UL shared channel allocations, and/or one or more UL configured grant (CG) allocations, and/or one or more DL shared channel allocations comprising or multiplexed with control information, and/or one or more UL shared channel allocations comprising or multiplexed with control information (These alternatives are not examined.); and
transmitting the single DCI to a user equipment (UE) ([0126] “At block 1208, the base station 104 transmits the DCI element on a PDCCH”) to schedule the one or more UL and/or DL control channel allocations (See above.) and the one or more of:
one or more dynamic DL shared channel allocations (See above.), and/or
one or more dynamic UL shared channel allocations, and/or one or more UL configured grant (CG) allocations, and/or one or more DL shared channel allocations comprising or multiplexed with control information, and/or one or more UL shared channel allocations comprising or multiplexed with control information (These alternatives are not examined.).
It is noted that while disclosing DCI scheduling PDSCH, Wu does not specifically teach about a dynamic PDSCH. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Hosseini as follows;
dynamic DL shared channel ([Hosseini, 0034] “A base station may schedule DL data to the UE on PDSCH dynamically or semi-persistently. In dynamic scheduling, each time the base station schedules DL data on PDSCH (e.g. dynamic DL data), the base station provides a DCI that includes a resource assignment for that PDSCH.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Wu by using the features of Hosseini in order to provide common protocol to users such that “The apparatus receives, from the base station, a radio resource control (RRC) message configuring the feedback to be for less than all of the DL HARQ processes” [Hosseini, 0006].
Regarding claim 50, it is a method claim at a user equipment corresponding to the method claim 37 in a reciprocal way, and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 37.
Regarding claim 55, it is a RAN node claim corresponding to the method claim 37, except the limitations, “processing circuitry; and a memory coupled with the processing circuitry, wherein the memory includes instructions that when executed by the processing circuitry” ([0043 and Fig. 1] “Processing hardware 130 of the base station 104 also can include one or more general-purpose processors such as CPUs and a non-transitory computer-readable memory storing instructions”), and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 37.
Regarding claim 56, it is an UE claim corresponding to the method claim 50, except the limitations, “processing circuitry; and a memory coupled with the processing circuitry, wherein the memory includes instructions that when executed by the processing circuitry” ([0037 and Fig. 1] “The UE 102, 106 is equipped with processing hardware 120 that can include one or more general-purpose processors (e.g., CPUs) and a non-transitory computer-readable memory storing instructions that the one or more general-purpose processors execute.”), and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 50
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim 38, the method of claim 37, wherein at least one of the one or more DL and/or UL control channel allocations and the one or more of the one or more dynamic DL shared channel allocations and/or the one or more dynamic UL shared channel allocations and/or the one or more UL CG allocations has a dependency on at least one other of the one of the one or more DL and/or UL control channel allocations and the one or more of the one or more dynamic DL shared channel allocations and/or the one more dynamic UL shared channel allocations and/or the one or more UL CG allocations ([0053] “The base station 104 generates a first DCI element including the first PUCCH resource assignment and a first PDSCH assignment configuring a first PDSCH.”).
Regarding claim 39, the method of claim 38, further comprising indicating the dependency ([0055] “If the UE 102 receives the first MAC PDU on the first PDSCH, the UE 102 identifies the first PUCCH resource assignment from the response 1 in the first MAC PDU.”).
Regarding claim 40, the method of claim 39, wherein indicating the dependency comprises indicating that a resource allocation of a later transmitted of the one of the one or more DL and/or UL control channel allocations and the one or more of the one or more dynamic DL shared channel allocations and/or the one or more dynamic UL shared channel allocations and/or the one or more UL CG allocations depends on an outcome of an earlier transmitted of the one of the one or more DL and/or UL control channel allocations and the one or more of the one or more dynamic DL shared channel allocations and/or the one or more dynamic UL shared channel allocations and/or the one or more UL CG allocations ([0055 and Fig. 3] “If the UE 102 receives the first MAC PDU on the first PDSCH, the UE 102 identifies the first PUCCH resource assignment from the response 1 in the first MAC PDU.”).
Regarding claim 41, the method of claim 39, wherein indicating the dependency comprises indicating that transmission parameters of the later transmitted of the one of the one or more DL and/or UL control channel allocations and the one or more of the one or more dynamic DL shared channel allocations and/or the one or more dynamic UL shared channel allocations and/or the one or more UL CG allocations depends on an outcome of an earlier transmitted of the one of the one or more DL and/or UL control channel allocations and the one or more of the one or more dynamic DL shared channel allocations and/or the one or more dynamic UL shared channel allocations and/or the one or more UL CG allocations ([0058] “The UE 102 receives the first HARQ transmission and attempts to decode 314 the first HARQ transmission to obtain the first MAC PDU. If the UE 102 successfully decodes 316 the first HARQ transmission to obtain the first MAC PDU and identifies the response 1, the UE 102 transmits the first HARQ ACK 322 on the first PUCCH resource included in the response 1 to the base station 104 to acknowledge reception of the first MAC PDU or the response 1.”).
Regarding claim 44, the method of claim 38, further comprising determining the dependency based on decoding of an earlier transmission where the dependency is derived based on the earlier transmission (See Fig. 5 for 516 “MAC PDU decoded successfully”.).
Regarding claim 45, the method of claim 37 wherein the single DCI dynamically configures the one of the one or more DL and/or UL control channel allocations and the one or more of the one or more dynamic DL shared channel allocations and/or the one or more dynamic UL shared channel allocations and/or the one or more UL CG allocations (See aforesaid [0126] “At block 1206, the base station 104 generates a DCI element which assigns a PDSCH resource and a control channel resource (e.g., a PUCCH resource).” Note that it is not clear meaning of “dynamically” and the recitation does not further recite more about it.).
Regarding claim 47, the method of claim 37, further comprising scheduling, via the single DCI, one or more of UL uplink control information (UCI) (This alternative is not examined.), hybrid automated repeat request (HARQ) ([0122] “the base station 104 may include a first new data indicator (NDI) in a first DCI scheduling a first HARQ transmission, and includes a second NDI in a second DCI scheduling a second HARQ transmission”) channel status information (CSI) and a scheduling request (SR) (These alternatives are not examined.).
Regarding claim 51, the method of claim 50 wherein transmitting UL control information or UL data and DL data in accordance with the single DCI comprises, responsive to the DCI scheduling multiple grants corresponding to a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) allocation for UL data transmission (See aforesaid [0126 and Fig. 5]), and/or physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) allocation for power reporting: transmitting an UL data transmission on the PUSCH ([0143] “The HARQ transmission may include a MAC PDU having a response 2 which includes a random access preamble identity associated with the random access preamble in the MsgA sent by the UE 106. The response 2 may also include a shared channel resource assignment (e.g., a PUSCH resource assignment) configuring a shared channel resource (e.g., a PUSCH resource) for the UE 106 to transmit a data payload of the MsgA as a Msg3 to the base station 104.”); and/or reporting power information on the PUCCH or in UL HARO feedback, or UCI or in scheduling requests or in CG-UCI (This alternative is not examined.).
Regarding claim 52, the method of claim 51 wherein receiving DL data in accordance with the single DCI comprises, responsive to the DCI scheduling multiple grants corresponding to a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) allocation for UL data transmission, and/or physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) allocation for reporting feedback, and/or DFI, and/or a DCI indication, and/or a preemption command, and/or a cancellation command, and/or scheduling parameters: receiving DL data transmission on the physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) ([0053] “The base station 104 transmits 312 a first HARQ transmission of the first MAC PDU on the first PDSCH.”).
Regarding claim 53, the method of claim 50 wherein transmitting UL data in accordance with the single DCI comprises, responsive to DL resource allocation and UL resource allocation is scheduled in the single DCI, generating specific UL data and transmitting specific UL data using the UL resource allocated only if DL physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) is decoded successfully (See Fig. 3 for 316 and 322.).
Claim(s) 42-43, 49 and 54 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2022/0174748, “Wu”) in view of Hosseini et al. (US 2022/0116153, “Hosseini”) and further in view of Sengupta et al. (US 2025/0175984, “Sengupta”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Wu unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 42, it is noted that while disclosing DCI scheduling PDSCH, Wu does not specifically teach about a flag indicating resources. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Sengupta as follows;
the method of claim 39, wherein indicating the dependency of a later transmitted of the one of the one or more DL and/or UL control channel allocations and the one or more of the one or more dynamic DL shared channel allocations and/or the one or more dynamic UL shared channel allocations and/or the one or more UL CG allocations is indicated by flag information included in an earlier transmitted of the one of the one or more DL and/or UL control channel allocations and the one or more of the one or more dynamic DL shared channel allocations and/or the one or more dynamic UL shared channel allocations and/or the one or more UL CG allocations ([Sengupta, 0161] “A DCI message can include among other things one or more time and frequency resource assignments for receiving PDSCH transmissions, a modulation and coding scheme indicator, HARQ process number, and control information for a corresponding PUCCH transmission such as power control, PUCCH resource indicator (PRI), and a PDSCH-to-HARQ_feedback timing indicator.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Wu by using the features of Hosseini in order to adjust processing time parameters such that “The first processing time parameter can be based on a PDSCH mapping type, a processing capability of the UE, and one or more timing characteristics of the first PDSCH and the second PDSCH” [Sengupta, 0004].
Regarding claim 43, the method of claim 38, further comprising deriving the dependency from transmission parameters ([Sengupta, 0161] “A DCI message can include among other things one or more time and frequency resource assignments for receiving PDSCH transmissions, a modulation and coding scheme indicator, HARQ process number, and control information for a corresponding PUCCH transmission such as power control, PUCCH resource indicator (PRI), and a PDSCH-to-HARQ_feedback timing indicator.”).
The rational and motivation for adding this teaching of Sengupta are the same as for claim 42.
Regarding claim 49, the method of claim 41, wherein the transmission parameters for the one or more DL and/or UL control channel allocations and the one or more of the one or more dynamic DL shared channel allocations and/or the one or more dynamic UL shared channel allocations comprises one or more of:
a pointer measured from a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) to a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) carrying a HARQ-ACK codebook ([Sengupta, 0161] “A DCI message can include among other things one or more time and frequency resource assignments for receiving PDSCH transmissions, a modulation and coding scheme indicator, HARQ process number, and control information for a corresponding PUCCH transmission such as power control, PUCCH resource indicator (PRI), and a PDSCH-to-HARQ_feedback timing indicator.”),
a pointer measured from a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) carrying the single DCI to a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) allocation, and a pointer measured from PDSCH to PUSCH carrying data or a HARQ codebook or both data and a HARQ codebook (These alternatives are not examined.).
The rational and motivation for adding this teaching of Sengupta are the same as for claim 42.
Regarding claim 54, the method of claim 50, wherein the single DCI schedules multiple UL and DL transmissions where some parameters of the UL transmissions are derived from flag information which is multiplexed with associated DL transmission ([Sengupta, 0161] “A DCI message can include among other things one or more time and frequency resource assignments for receiving PDSCH transmissions, a modulation and coding scheme indicator, HARQ process number, and control information for a corresponding PUCCH transmission such as power control, PUCCH resource indicator (PRI), and a PDSCH-to-HARQ_feedback timing indicator.”).
The rational and motivation for adding this teaching of Sengupta are the same as for claim 42.
Claim(s) 46 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2022/0174748, “Wu”) in view of Hosseini et al. (US 2022/0116153, “Hosseini”) and further in view of Yi et al. (US 2023/0199797, “Yi”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Wu unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 46, it is noted that while disclosing DCI scheduling PDSCH, Wu does not specifically teach about scheduling periodic resources. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Yi as follows;
the method of claim 37 further comprising periodically configuring the one of the one or more DL and/or UL control channel allocations and the one or more of the one or more dynamic DL shared channel allocations and/or the one or more dynamic UL shared channel allocations ([Yi, 0307] “A base station may determine R-DCI or V-DCI for a single M-DCI for one or more periodic resources of a plurality of scheduled cells.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Wu by using the features of Yi in order to effectively utilize resources such that “downlink control information (DCI) having a first field indicating one or more of the cells configured with periodic resources” [Yi, Abstract].
Claim(s) 48 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2022/0174748, “Wu”) in view of Hosseini et al. (US 2022/0116153, “Hosseini”) and further in view of Fan et al. (US 2021/0352631, “Fan”).
Examiner’s note: in what follows, references are drawn to Wu unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 48, it is noted that while disclosing DCI scheduling PDSCH, Wu does not specifically teach about a combined DCI and one common CRC. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Fan as follows;
the method of claim 37 wherein determining the single DCI comprises stacking two legacy DCls and one common cyclic redundancy check (CRC) ([Fan, 0067] “To reduce the space taken by CRC accompanying each component DCI, when multiple component DCIs are transmitted in the PDSCH, the base station may combine the multiple component DCIs into a single payload that is jointly encoded with one CRC instead.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Wu by using the features of Fan in order to provide a common protocol to various wireless standards users such that “The apparatus jointly encodes multiple component DCIs, each of the component DCIs providing a resource allocation in combination with the first DCI portion.” [Fan, 0005].
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry H. Kim whose telephone number and email address are as follows; 571-272-5009, harry.kim2@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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from www.uspto.gov. For questions or assistance, 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.
/HARRY H KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights