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
This office action is in response to the amendment & remarks filed on 08/18/2026.
Claims 7-10 are currently pending.
Claims 1-6 are canceled in a preliminary amendment.
Claims 7-9 are currently amended.
Claims 7-10 are rejected.
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 7, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi Wang et al (US 20240080856 A1) in view of Chaojun Zeng et al (US 20240080840 A1).
For Claim 7, Wang discloses a terminal comprising:
a receiver that receives a downlink control information for scheduling multiple downlink data channels (Wang teaches, in FIG. 4, In step 401: UE receives a PDCCH. The received PDCCH may include a DCI for scheduling one or more PDSCHs), and a processor that determines a codebook including a feedback of an automatic retransmission request of the downlink data channels based on a number of effective downlink data channels (Wang teaches, in FIG. 4, In step 403: the UE determines and transmits the hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) codebook for the PDSCHs according to the received PDSCHs and PDCCH).
Wang fails to expressly disclose a single downlink control information for scheduling multiple downlink data channels.
However, Zeng, in analogous art, discloses a single downlink control information for scheduling multiple downlink data channels (Zeng teaches in ¶ 0030, that Multi-PDSCH scheduling means that a single piece of DCI can schedule multiple PDSCH transmissions on the same carrier at one time).
Zeng also teaches in ¶ 0048, that a PDSCH cannot be actually transmitted due to a conflict with a semi-static uplink symbol (that is, at least one of symbols occupied by the PDSCH has been semi-statically configured as an uplink symbol) or due to other cases.[0049] The scheduled PDSCHs include: valid PDSCH(s) or invalid PDSCH(s).
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 communication system taught in Wang with the single piece of DCI taught in Zeng. The motivation is to performing time-domain bundling within a PDSCH range corresponding to a single PDSCH group.
For Claim 9, Wang discloses a radio communication system comprising a radio base station and a terminal, wherein the radio base station comprises a transmitter that transmits a downlink control information for scheduling multiple downlink data channels (Wang illustrates, in FIG. 1 a wireless network 100 that includes a gNodeB (gNB) 101, a gNB 102, and a gNB 103, and plurality of UEs include a UE 111, UE 112), and the terminal comprises:
a receiver that receives the downlink control information (Wang teaches, in FIG. 4, In step 401: UE receives a PDCCH. The received PDCCH may include a DCI for scheduling one or more PDSCHs), and a processor that determines a codebook including feedback of an automatic retransmission request for the downlink data channels based on a number of effective downlink data channels (Wang teaches, in FIG. 4, In step 403: the UE determines and transmits the hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) codebook for the PDSCHs according to the received PDSCHs and PDCCH).
Wang also teaches in ¶ [0128] that According to one implementation, the HARQ process ID of the first PDSCH of the Np PDSCHs is indicated in the DCI, and the HARQ process IDs of the other Np−1 PDSCHs are sequentially increased by 1 on the basis.
Wang fails to expressly disclose a single downlink control information for scheduling multiple downlink data channels.
However, Zeng, in analogous art, discloses a single downlink control information for scheduling multiple downlink data channels (Zeng teaches in ¶ 0030, that Multi-PDSCH scheduling means that a single piece of DCI can schedule multiple PDSCH transmissions on the same carrier at one time).
Zeng also teaches in ¶ 0048, that a PDSCH cannot be actually transmitted due to a conflict with a semi-static uplink symbol (that is, at least one of symbols occupied by the PDSCH has been semi-statically configured as an uplink symbol) or due to other cases.[0049] The scheduled PDSCHs include: valid PDSCH(s) or invalid PDSCH(s).
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 communication system taught in Wang with the single piece of DCI taught in Zeng. The motivation is to performing time-domain bundling within a PDSCH range corresponding to a single PDSCH group.
For Claim 10, please refer to the rejection of claim 7, above.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi Wang et al (US 20240080856 A1) in view of Chaojun Zeng et al (US 20240080840 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Gang Xiong et al (US 20240163894 A1).
For Claim 8, Wang & Zeng disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of second sub-codebook is different from a first sub-codebook including feedback of an automatic retransmission request of the downlink data channel scheduled by downlink control information for scheduling a single downlink data channel.
However, Xiong, in analogous art, discloses second sub-codebook is different from a first sub-codebook including feedback of an automatic retransmission request of the downlink data channel scheduled by downlink control information for scheduling a single downlink data channel (Xiong teaches, teaches in ¶ 0069, lines 1-4, that The first sub-codebook carries HARQ-ACK bits for all TB based PDSCH transmissions scheduled by a DCI scheduling a single TTI. Xiong teaches, teaches in ¶ 0072, lines 1-4, that The second sub-codebook carries HARQ-ACK bits for all other PDSCH transmissions, e.g. CBG-based PDSCH transmissions and PDSCH transmissions scheduled by a DCI scheduling multiple TTIs).
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 communication system taught in Wang & Zeng with the plurality of sub-codebooks taught in Xiong. The motivation is so that the dynamic HARQ-ACK codebook includes two concatenated sub-codebooks.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner will respond in the rebuttal that follows:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendment filed on 08/18/2026 has rendered moot the 35 USC § 112 rejection contained in the previous office action.
Claim Rejection under 35 USC 103
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that "Wang and Zeng, whether considered separately or in combination, fail to teach at least a processor that determines a codebook including a feedback of an automatic retransmission request of the downlink data channels based on a number of effective downlink data channels, as required in amended claim 7," (remarks, page 8).
The reason being Wang teaches, in FIG. 4, In step 403: the UE determines and transmits the hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) codebook for the PDSCHs according to the received PDSCHs and PDCCH.
Wang also teaches in ¶ [0128] that According to one implementation, the HARQ process ID of the first PDSCH of the Np PDSCHs is indicated in the DCI, and the HARQ process IDs of the other Np−1 PDSCHs are sequentially increased by 1 on the basis.
Thus, Examiner believes that Wang teaches that the UE determines and transmits the hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) codebook for the PDSCHs according to the received PDSCHs. Herein, the received PDSCHs (i.e., Np PDSCHs) are mapped to the claimed number of effective downlink data channels.
Further, Wang states in ¶ [0129] that For example, one DCI schedules 4 PDSCHs, wherein PDSCH 1, 2, and 4 are valid PDSCHs; and the symbols of PDSCH3 include semi-static uplink symbols, then PDSCH 3 is an invalid PDSCH.
Thus, contrary to the Applicant, Examiner observes that Wang uses selected PDSCH time-resource information, which are numbered/quantified as Np PDSCHs in determining the HARQ-ACK codebook. As such, Wang's teachings are not distinct from the claimed determination based on a number of effective downlink data channels, as required in the amended claim.
In view of the above, it is clear that Wang teaches the required limitation of amended independent claim 7.
Also, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s apparent argument of impermissible hindsight reconstruction, which is implied in "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had no motivation to supply the missing elements without the benefit of Applicant's own disclosure as a guide," (remarks, page 9).
Examiner respectfully disagrees because “[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.” In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971).
Moreover, there is no requirement that an “express, written motivation to combine must appear in prior art references before a finding of obviousness.” See Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 1276, 69 USPQ2d 1686, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP § 2141 and § 2143 for guidance regarding establishment of a prima facie case of obviousness.
In view of the above, amended independent claim 7 is not yet patentable over Wang and Zeng, when considered in combination. Independent claims 9 and 10 recite substantially similar limitations and are therefore not yet patentable for at least the same reasons. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 7, 9-10 is respectfully maintained as proper.
Regarding the rejection of dependent claim 8, Examiner respectfully submits that this claim is not patentable for at least depending from a rejected base claim, as well as for being rejected on its own merit.
For at least these reasons, the pending claims are not yet allowable.
Accordingly, Examiner respectfully requests that the rejection be maintained as proper.
In light of the above rebuttal and rejection, Examiner believes that this instant rejection should be made final.
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 MOHAMED A KAMARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5629. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-4PM.
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 at 5712707191. 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.
/MOHAMED A KAMARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights