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 Argument
Applicant’s arguments see pages 6-12 filed on June 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claims 21 and 29, applicant argue that the cited combination of Fakoorian ‘357 and Pezeshki ‘347 fails to teach the limitation of “transmitting, to the base station, an indication of a transmission reliability score (TRS), wherein the TRS is based on the RS and is transmitted based on a prediction of successfully decoding the encoded code block”. The applicant contends that “the SNR is not " ...transmitted based on a prediction..." but rather itself is the prediction, according to the argument, and is transmitted regardless of the prediction…”. (remarks page 11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, during patent examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. The phrase “transmitted based on a prediction” does not necessitate a conditional trigger where the transmission only occurs if a specific predicted outcome (e.g. a successful decode) is reached. Rather, “based on” broadly means that the transmitted information is derived from, determined by or founded upon the predictive assessment of the decoding process.
Fakoorian ‘357 teaches ([0083], [0089], [0097] and Fig. 3) calculating CQI/SNR from a received DMRS and transmitting that information as an indication of channel reliability. Fakoorian ‘357 further teaches the DMRS-based CQI may explicitly or implicitly indicate an early ACK or NACK before completion of decoding, including determining an early ACK or NACK based on whether the CQI or SNR satisfies a threshold. Thus, the transmitted CQI/SNR communicating a prediction of the decoding outcome as taught by Fakoorian ‘357 reads on applicants argued claim limitation. Rejection of Claims 21 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is therefore maintained.
Regarding dependent claims 22-28 and 30-40 the Applicant argues these claims conditionally on that of their parent independent claims.
Applicant's arguments are unpersuasive and, therefore, the rejections of these claims are hereby maintained.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21, 23-25, 27-29, 31-33, 35-37, 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fakoorian et al(US 2020/0112357 A1) in view of Pezeshki et al (US 2022/0053347 A1).
Regarding claims 21 and 29, Fakoorian ‘357 teaches, a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU)( [0107], [0108] and Figs. 3-5, UE) comprising: circuitry configured to receive, from the base station ([0107], [0108] and Figs. 3-5, UE 500 comprising receiver 510 for receiving from a bases station), an E-HARQ timing indicator ([0074], [0081] and Figs. 2-3, UE receiving control message that indicates PUCCH resource allocation or offsets for transmitting early ACK/NACK indicators), an encoded code block of a transport block (TB)([0008], [0102] and Fig. 3, UE receiving downlink transmission data packet( PDSCH) for which it provides feedback), and a reference symbol (RS)([0008], [0089], [0093] and Figs. 1-3, UE receiving DMRS that is included in downlink symbols); and
circuitry configured to transmit, to the base station, an indication of a transmission reliability score (TRS)( [0007],[0074]-[0075] and Figs.2-3, UE transmitting Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) including explicit value of SNR which indicates reliability level/score of the downlink transmission to the base station),wherein the TRS is based on the RS ([0008], [0074], CQI being calculated based on the DMRS received from the base station) and is transmitted based on a prediction of successfully decoding the encoded code block([0083], [0089], [0097] and Fig.3, the CQI feedback indicating early ACK/NACK, serving as a predictive status since the early ACK is transmitted before completing the decoding) and wherein the TRS is transmitted on uplink resources indicated by the E-HARQ timing indicator([0074], [0081] and Figs. 2-3, the CQI being transmitted on resources allocated for transmitting early ACK/NACK indicators( PUCCH and/or time offset)).
Fakoorian ‘357 does not explicitly teach, circuitry configured to transmit, to a base station, an indication of an early hybrid automatic repeat request (E-HARQ) capability.
Pezeshki ‘347 teaches, circuitry configured to transmit, to a base station, an indication of an early hybrid automatic repeat request (E-HARQ) capability ([0056], [0104], UE may transmit a capability message to the base station to indicate that the UE is capable of transmitting predicted NACK (E-HARQ) messages).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Fakoorian ‘357, by incorporating the teaching of Pezeshki ‘347, since such modification would enable the bases station to determine whether to retransmit the downlink data message based on the predicted NACK message, such that the predicted NACK message may reduce the latency associated with retransmission of downlink data messages, as suggested by Pezeshki ‘347(abstract).
Regarding claims 23, 31 and 39, the combination of Fakoorian ‘357 and Pezeshki ‘347 teaches all of the claim limitations, Fakoorian ‘357 further teaches, further comprising transmitting an early-acknowledge (ACK) signal or early negative acknowledgement (NACK) signal to the base station based on the prediction([0083], [0089], [0097] and Fig.3, the CQI feedback indicating early ACK/NACK, serving as a predictive status since the early ACK is transmitted before completion decoding the packet).
Regarding claims 24, 32 and 40, the combination of Fakoorian ‘357 and Pezeshki ‘347 teaches all of the claim limitations, Fakoorian ‘357 further teaches, wherein the early ACK or early NACK signal includes the TRS([0083], [0089], [0097] and Fig.3, the CQI feedback indicating early ACK/NACK, the CQI including an explicit value of SNR which indicates reliability level/score of the downlink transmission).
Regarding claims 25 and 33, the combination of Fakoorian ‘357 and Pezeshki ‘347 teaches all of the claim limitations, Fakoorian ‘357 further teaches, wherein the TRS is based on a measure of channel distortion ([0057], [0074], [0083] and Fig. 3, calculating CQI based on DMRS which measures channel distortion).
Regarding claims 27 and 35, the combination of Fakoorian ‘357 and Pezeshki ‘347 teaches all of the claim limitations, Fakoorian ‘357 further teaches, further comprising receiving an indication of a HARQ type from the base station, wherein the HARQ type includes HARQ, E-HARQ, or both HARQ and E-HARQ([0008], [0091] and Fig. 3, the UE receiving CQI reporting configuration that specifies fir the UE should report based on DMRS(E-HARQ) or standard HARQ).
Regarding claims 28 and 36, the combination of Fakoorian ‘357 and Pezeshki ‘347 teaches all of the claim limitations, Fakoorian ‘357 further teaches, wherein the indication of the HARQ type is received in a downlink control information (DCI)([008], [0122], DCI message may indicate the resources for reception and type of feedback required).
Regarding claim 37, Fakoorian ‘357 teaches, a method performed by a base station( [0137], [0138] and Figs. 2-3, base station) the method comprising: transmitting, to the WTRU, an E-HARQ timing indicator([0074], [0081] and Figs. 2-3, base station transmitting to UE control message that indicates PUCCH resource allocation or offsets for transmitting early ACK/NACK indicators), an encoded code block of a transport block (TB) ([0008], [0102] and Fig. 3, UE receiving downlink transmission data packet( PDSCH) for which it provides feedback), and a reference symbol (RS) )([0008], [0089], [0093] and Figs. 1-3, BS transmitting to UE DMRS that is included in downlink symbols); and receiving, from the WTRU, an indication of a transmission reliability score (TRS) ( [0007],[0074]-[0075] and Figs.2-3, BS receiving from the UE Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) including explicit value of SNR which indicates reliability level/score of the downlink transmission to the base station), wherein the TRS is based on the RS([0008], [0074], CQI being calculated based on the DMRS received from the base station), and wherein the TRS is received on uplink resources indicated by the E-HARQ timing indicator([0074], [0081] and Figs. 2-3, the CQI being received on resources allocated for transmitting early ACK/NACK indicators( PUCCH and/or time offset)).
Fakoorian ‘357 does not explicitly teach, receiving, from a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), an indication of an early hybrid automatic repeat request (E-HARQ) capability.
Pezeshki ‘347 teaches, receiving, from a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), an indication of an early hybrid automatic repeat request (E-HARQ) capability([0056], [0104], the UE may transmit a capability message to the base station to indicate that the UE may be capable of transmitting predicted NACK ( E-HARQ) messages).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Fakoorian ‘357, by incorporating the teaching of Pezeshki ‘347, since such modification would enable the bases station to determine whether to retransmit the downlink data message based on the predicted NACK message, such that the predicted NACK message may reduce the latency associated with retransmission of downlink data messages, as suggested by Pezeshki ‘347(abstract).
Claims 22, 30 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fakoorian ‘357 and Pezeshki ‘347 as applied to claims above, and further in view of Goktepe et al(US 2020/0083989 A1).
Regarding claims 22, 30 and 38, the combination of Fakoorian ‘357 and Pezeshki ‘347 teaches all of the claim limitations except, wherein the encoded code block comprises a redundancy version (RV) block.
Goktepe ‘989 teaches, wherein the encoded code block comprises a redundancy version (RV) block ([0027]-[0028] and Fig. 3, encoded code blocks(CB) with redundancy version(RV)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined communication system of Fakoorian ‘357 and Pezeshki ‘347, by incorporating the teaching of Goktepe ‘989, since such modification would enable to improve high latency due to frequent HARQ retransmissions, as suggested by Goktepe et al([0007]-[0008]).
Claims 26 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fakoorian ‘357 and Pezeshki ‘347 as applied to claims above, and further in view of Wu et al(US 2024/0039659 A1).
Regarding claims 26 and 34, the combination of Fakoorian ‘357 and Pezeshki ‘347 teaches all of the claim limitations except, transmitting an indication of E-HARQ accuracy to the base station.
Wu ‘659 teaches, transmitting an indication of E-HARQ accuracy to the base station ([0094]-[0095], the HARQ feedback including probability score computed by a UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined communication system of Fakoorian ‘357 and Pezeshki ‘347 since such modification would minimize a latency associated with HARQ feedback procedures (e.g., a UE transmitting ACK/NACK feedback to a base station) by facilitating a machine learning assisted predictive retransmission feedback, as suggested by Wu ‘659([0046]).
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 AWET A HAILE whose telephone number is (571)270-3114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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 (571)272-2832. 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.
/AWET HAILE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights