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 .
Status of the Application
This Office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed July 7, 2026. Claims 1-6 have been canceled. New independent claims 7-9 have been added. Claims 7-9 are pending and are examined herein. The formal drawings filed May 7, 2024, are accepted. Applicant’s cancellation of claims 1-6 and presentation of new claims 7-9 necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in this Office action. See MPEP 706.07(a). Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 7, 2026 with respect to the rejections of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are moot in view of the cancellation of claims 1-6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the patentability of new claims 7-9 over TS 38.213, R1-2109162, R1-2109342, and R1-2110562 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, for the reasons set forth below.
Applicant argues that “TS 38.213 does not disclose or suggest, at least, carrier switching for transmitting feedback information for downlink data or a maximum deferral period” (Remarks, page 8). This argument is not persuasive because it attacks TS 38.213 individually, whereas the rejection is based on the combination of TS 38.213 with R1-2109162 and R1-2109342. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). TS 38.213 is relied upon for the SPS PDSCH reception and HARQ-ACK reporting framework, not for the deferral or the carrier switching, which are supplied by R1-2109162 and R1-2109342 as set forth in the rejection below.
Applicant further argues that “While R1-2109162 mentions a maximum deferral period, it does not teach the maximum deferral period in the context of carrier switching” (Remarks, page 8). This argument is not persuasive because it addresses only the deferral agreements reproduced at page 3 of R1-2109162 and does not address the further passages of R1-2109162 cited in the rejection below. R1-2109162 expressly discusses the joint operation of PUCCH carrier switching and SPS HARQ-ACK deferral, including the UE performing the deferral on the determined PUCCH cell, and expressly identifies the primary cell as a reference cell for interpreting the carrier switching pattern numerology and the k1 timing, as cited in the rejection below.
Applicant further argues that R1-2109342 “clearly notes that how to determine the reference cell for the deferral period is unknown” (Remarks, page 8). This argument is not persuasive. The passage relied upon by Applicant is the FFS annotation to Proposal A.4 of R1-2109342, which establishes that a reference cell is to be used for interpreting the k1 timing under PUCCH carrier switching and expressly invites resolution of which cell serves as the reference cell. R1-2109162 identifies a finite set of candidate resolutions to that question, including the primary cell, as cited in the rejection below. Selecting the primary cell from that finite set of identified, predictable solutions is precisely the circumstance in which a combination is obvious to try. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007), (See also MPEP 2143 I (E) “Obvious To Try” – Choosing From a Finite Number of Identified, Predictable Solutions, With a Reasonable Expectation of Success”)
Applicant further argues that “While R1-2110562 mentions a maximum deferral period, it does not teach the maximum deferral period in the context of carrier switching” (Remarks, page 8). This argument is moot, as R1-2110562 is not applied in the rejection of claims 7-9 set forth below.
Applicant further argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would not be motivated to supply the missing elements” without the benefit of “Applicant’s own disclosure as a guide” (Remarks, page 9). This argument is not persuasive because the rejection below relies only on knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, namely the express identification in R1-2109162 of the primary cell as a reference cell for interpreting the carrier switching pattern and the k1 timing, and the express discussion in R1-2109162 of joint operation of PUCCH carrier switching and SPS HARQ-ACK deferral. The rationale for the combination is taken from the references themselves, not from Applicant’s disclosure. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant’s cancellation of claims 1-6 and presentation of new independent claims 7-9, which newly recite that the maximum deferral period is interpreted based on a slot in a primary cell when carrier switching and deferral are executed, necessitated the new ground of rejection set forth below, which cites passages of R1-2109162 (pages 50, 53 and 54) not previously applied. Accordingly, the rejection below constitutes a new ground of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, and this action is properly made final.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TS 38.213 V16.6.0 in view of R1-2109162 and further in view of R1-2109342.
Regarding claim 7, (New) TS 38.213 discloses: A terminal comprising: a receiver that receives downlink data scheduled by Semi-Persistent Scheduling (SPS), because TS 38.213 teaches the UE procedure for reporting HARQ-ACK corresponding to SPS PDSCH receptions and the associated PUCCH resource framework: (TS 38.213, pg. 84, §9.2.3 “For a SPS PDSCH reception ending in slot n, the UE transmits the PUCCH”; TS 38.213, pg. 79, §9.2.1 “a PUCCH resource set is provided by pucch-ResourceCommon through an index to a row of Table 9.2.1-1 for transmission of HARQ-ACK information on PUCCH”).
Although TS 38.213 teaches SPS HARQ-ACK reporting timing and the associated PUCCH operation for SPS PDSCH receptions: (TS 38.213, pg. 79, §9.2.1; TS 38.213, pg. 84, §9.2.3), TS 38.213 does not explicitly disclose deferral of that feedback to a later slot, a configured bound on that deferral, or transmission of the deferred feedback on the uplink control channel.
However, TS 38.213 in view of R1-2109162 discloses a processor that executes deferral of feedback information for the downlink data, wherein a maximum deferral period is configured for the deferral of the feedback information because R1-2109162 teaches deferral of the SPS HARQ-ACK from the slot its activation grant determines to a later target slot, bounded by a maximum deferral value the network configures per SPS configuration (R1-2109162, pg. 2, “For SPS HARQ-ACK, the deferral from the initial slot/sub-slot determined by k1 in the activation DCI to the target slot/sub-slot determined by k1+ k1def, the UE will check the validity of a target slot/sub-slot evaluating from one slot/sub-slot to the next sub/sub-slot”; R1-2109162, pg. 3, “For SPS HARQ-ACK deferral, the maximum deferral value in terms of k1+k1def is RRC configured per SPS configuration.”).
Furthermore, R1-2109162 discloses and a transmitter that transmits, based on the execution of the deferral of the feedback information, an uplink control channel carrying the feedback information because R1-2109162 teaches that the target slot the deferral determines is a slot in which an uplink control channel resource is valid, and that the deferred SPS HARQ-ACK bits are carried in that slot (R1-2109162, pg. 3, “For SPS HARQ-ACK deferral, the target PUCCH slot is defined as the next PUCCH slot where sps-PUCCH-AN-List-r16 or n1PUCCH-AN PUCCH resource is regarded as valid”; R1-2109162, pg. 3, “For SPS HARQ-ACK deferral, in the target PUCCH slot the deferred SPS HARQ-ACK bits are appended to the initial HARQ bits / Type 1 or Type 2 codebook.”).
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 SPS HARQ-ACK reporting procedure of TS 38.213 with the SPS HARQ-ACK deferral of R1-2109162 in order to avoid dropping SPS HARQ-ACK whose PUCCH occasion collides with downlink or flexible symbols in TDD operation, while keeping the feedback latency bounded by the configured maximum deferral value.
Even though TS 38.213 in view of R1-2109162 teaches the reporting of SPS HARQ-ACK on the uplink control channel, the deferral of that SPS HARQ-ACK bounded by a maximum deferral value defined in terms of the k1 timing, the joint operation of PUCCH carrier switching with that deferral, and a finite set of candidate reference cells for interpreting the switching pattern numerology and the k1 timing: (TS 38.213, pg. 84, §9.2.3; R1-2109162, pg. 2; R1-2109162, pg. 3; R1-2109162, pg. 50; R1-2109162, pg. 53; R1-2109162, pg. 54), TS 38.213 in view of R1-2109162 does not explicitly disclose interpreting that bound on a slot of the primary cell when carrier switching and deferral are executed together.
Nevertheless, TS 38.213 in view of R1-2109162 and further in view of R1-2109342 discloses wherein, when a carrier switching applied to the uplink control channel and the deferral of the feedback information are executed, the processor interprets the maximum deferral period based on a slot in a primary cell because R1-2109342 teaches that, under semi-static PUCCH carrier switching, the PDSCH to HARQ-ACK offset k1 is interpreted based on the numerology and PUCCH configuration of a reference cell (R1-2109342, pg. 5, “For semi-static PUCCH carrier switching, the PDSCH to HARQ-ACK offset k1 is interpreted based on the numerology and PUCCH configuration of a reference cell to be able to apply the time-domain PUCCH carrier switching pattern.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the PUCCH carrier switching of R1-2109342 to the deferred SPS HARQ-ACK transmission of TS 38.213 in view of R1-2109162 and, in doing so, to interpret the maximum deferral period on a slot of the primary cell. R1-2109162, at the pages cited above, both places the carrier switching and the deferral in joint operation and identifies the primary cell among the finite set of candidate reference cells expressly proposed for interpreting the switching pattern numerology and the k1 timing, and the maximum deferral period is itself defined in terms of that k1 timing. Choosing the primary cell from that finite set of identified, predictable solutions is obvious to try, and doing so would predictably permit the time-domain carrier switching pattern to be applied consistently and would give the deferral bound a single unambiguous slot reference across candidate PUCCH cells of different numerologies.
Regarding claim 8, (New) the claim recites: A communication method executed by a terminal, the method comprising: receiving downlink data scheduled by Semi-Persistent Scheduling (SPS); executing deferral of feedback information for the downlink data, wherein a maximum deferral period is configured for the deferral of the feedback information; transmitting, based on the execution of the deferral of the feedback information, an uplink control channel carrying the feedback information; and when a carrier switching applied to the uplink control channel and the deferral of the feedback information are executed, interpreting the maximum deferral period based on a slot in a primary cell. Claim 8 is analogous to claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 9, (New) TS 38.213 discloses: A radio communication system comprising: a terminal; and a base station, wherein the terminal includes: a receiver that receives downlink data scheduled by Semi-Persistent Scheduling (SPS), because TS 38.213 teaches the UE procedure for reporting HARQ-ACK corresponding to SPS PDSCH receptions and the associated PUCCH resource framework: (TS 38.213, pg. 84, §9.2.3 “For a SPS PDSCH reception ending in slot n, the UE transmits the PUCCH”; TS 38.213, pg. 79, §9.2.1 “a PUCCH resource set is provided by pucch-ResourceCommon through an index to a row of Table 9.2.1-1 for transmission of HARQ-ACK information on PUCCH”).
Furthermore, R1-2109162 discloses a processor that executes deferral of feedback information for the downlink data, wherein a maximum deferral period is configured for the deferral of the feedback information because R1-2109162 teaches deferral of the SPS HARQ-ACK to a later target slot bounded by a maximum deferral value the network configures per SPS configuration (R1-2109162, pg. 2, “For SPS HARQ-ACK, the deferral from the initial slot/sub-slot determined by k1 in the activation DCI to the target slot/sub-slot determined by k1+ k1def, the UE will check the validity of a target slot/sub-slot evaluating from one slot/sub-slot to the next sub/sub-slot”; R1-2109162, pg. 3, “For SPS HARQ-ACK deferral, the maximum deferral value in terms of k1+k1def is RRC configured per SPS configuration.”).
Moreover, R1-2109162 discloses and a transmitter that transmits, based on the execution of the deferral of the feedback information, an uplink control channel carrying the feedback information because R1-2109162 teaches that the target slot the deferral determines is a slot in which an uplink control channel resource is valid, and that the deferred SPS HARQ-ACK bits are carried in that slot (R1-2109162, pg. 3, “For SPS HARQ-ACK deferral, the target PUCCH slot is defined as the next PUCCH slot where sps-PUCCH-AN-List-r16 or n1PUCCH-AN PUCCH resource is regarded as valid”; R1-2109162, pg. 3, “For SPS HARQ-ACK deferral, in the target PUCCH slot the deferred SPS HARQ-ACK bits are appended to the initial HARQ bits / Type 1 or Type 2 codebook.”).
In addition, TS 38.213 in view of R1-2109162 and further in view of R1-2109342 discloses wherein, when a carrier switching applied to the uplink control channel and the deferral of the feedback information are executed, the processor interprets the maximum deferral period based on a slot in a primary cell, as R1-2109342 further discloses that, under semi-static PUCCH carrier switching, the PDSCH to HARQ-ACK offset k1 is interpreted based on the numerology and PUCCH configuration of a reference cell (R1-2109342, pg. 5, “For semi-static PUCCH carrier switching, the PDSCH to HARQ-ACK offset k1 is interpreted based on the numerology and PUCCH configuration of a reference cell to be able to apply the time-domain PUCCH carrier switching pattern.”).
Furthermore, TS 38.213 discloses: and wherein the base station includes: a transmitter that transmits the downlink data to the terminal, because TS 38.213 teaches SPS PDSCH receptions at the UE, the downlink data of which is transmitted to the UE by the network: (TS 38.213, pg. 84, §9.2.3 “For a SPS PDSCH reception ending in slot n, the UE transmits the PUCCH”).
In addition, R1-2109162 discloses a processor that indicates execution of the deferral of the feedback information to the terminal because R1-2109162 teaches that the deferral and its maximum value are configured to the UE by the network via RRC signaling per SPS configuration (R1-2109162, pg. 3, “For SPS HARQ-ACK deferral, the maximum deferral value in terms of k1+k1def is RRC configured per SPS configuration.”).
Moreover, R1-2109162 discloses and a receiver that receives, based on the execution of the deferral of the feedback information, the uplink control channel from the terminal because R1-2109162 teaches that the deferred SPS HARQ-ACK bits are carried in the uplink control channel of the determined target slot, the reception of which at the network is the necessary correlate of the transmission (R1-2109162, pg. 3, “For SPS HARQ-ACK deferral, the target PUCCH slot is defined as the next PUCCH slot where sps-PUCCH-AN-List-r16 or n1PUCCH-AN PUCCH resource is regarded as valid”; R1-2109162, pg. 3, “For SPS HARQ-ACK deferral, in the target PUCCH slot the deferred SPS HARQ-ACK bits are appended to the initial HARQ bits / Type 1 or Type 2 codebook.”).
Accordingly, TS 38.213, R1-2109162 and R1-2109342 are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHONGSUH (John) PARK whose telephone number is 408-918-7574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:30 PST
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, Avellino, Joseph can be reached at 571-272-3905 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.
/CHONGSUH PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights