DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the claims filed on: 07/01/2024.
Claims 1-14 and 17-22 are pending for Examination.
Claims 15-16 were cancelled by preliminary amendment.
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 Statements
The information disclosure statements (IDS’) submitted on: 07/01/2024 and 11/20/2025 are determined to be compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, these IDS’ are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation – Alternative Claim Language
The claims of the instant application are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the BRI of an alternative claim limitation or term can be determined to be the least-limiting interpretation, consistent with the specification. In this context, the term “or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to alternatively be: one or the other (i.e., A or B), but not both (i.e., not A and B). The term “and/or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to be: “and” or alternatively “or,” but not both, as this would not make sense. In this context, the forward-slash “/” is equivalent to the alternative “or.” Likewise, the alternative terms “at least one of,” “one or more of,” and the like, followed by multiple alternative claim limitations can be reasonably interpreted to be only “one of” a group of alternative claim limitations.
Prior art disclosing any one of multiple alternative claim limitations discloses matter within the scope of the claimed invention. "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See MPEP 2131.
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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102) 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.
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 1, 7, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable in view of US PG Pub. 2023/0077055 A1, Gou et al. (hereinafter “Gou”).
With respect to claim 1, Gou teaches:
A method for feeding back a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ), the method performed by user equipment (UE) (paras. [0006]-[0014], [0062]-[0065], and [0072]-[0075] and electronic device of Figs. 5-6 —a UE can send HARQ feedback, i.e., a HARQ-ACK codebook to a BS) and comprising:
processing, on a condition that it is determined that a same physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) sequence has to carry an HARQ feedback codebook based on first downlink control information (DCI) and second DCI received from a network device, the PUCCH sequence carrying the HARQ feedback codebook based on a preconfigured mode (paras. [0024], [0028], [0035]-[0039], [0043], [0049], and [0051]-[0055]; Tables 1-3 and DCI 1 and DCI 2 and Fig. 4 —a UE can receive, from a BS, a first DCI and a second DCI, i.e., as depicted in Fig. 4, including a PUCCH resource indicator (PRI) indicating a same PUCCH sequence/resource for providing a new, multiplexed/combined HARQ codebook feedback, which the Examiner interprets to correspond to a preconfigured mode for feedback —the number of bits can be no more than 2-bits, i.e., for PUCCH format 0, and “a predefined relationship” may also include “a corresponding sequence cyclic shift,” (time domain) which is equivalent to a sequence “phase rotation” in the frequency domain —thus, the Examiner also interprets the “predefined relationship” of the sequence cyclic shift to correspond to a “preconfigured mode” for feedback —the UE can then transmit the new multiplexed HARQ feedback codebook, i.e., for multi-priority HARQ feedback relating to URLLC (HP) and/or eMBB (LP) communications at paras. [0003]-[0004], via a same PUCCH sequence, i.e., having PUCCH format 0, based on the “preconfigured mode” corresponding to the PRI and/or the sequence cyclic shift),
wherein the PUCCH sequence is a PUCCH format 0 sequence, and the HARQ feedback codebook comprises a first HARQ feedback bit for the first DCI and a second HARQ feedback bit for the second DCI (paras. [0051]-[0054]; and Tables 2-4 —for the PUCCH format 0 sequence, a multiplexed HARQ codebook feedback HARQ-ACK value can comprise two bits representative of feedback for, prioritized first and second DCI-configured PDSCH receptions, i.e., where “1” is an ACK and “0” is NACK, as shown in Tables 2 and 3); and
transmitting a processed PUCCH sequence to the network device (paras. [0004]-[0005], [0041], [0051] and [0053]-[0054] —an electronic device, such as a UE, can transmit its multiplexed HARQ codebook feedback to a network device, i.e., a BS, according to the 2-bit preconfigured mapping, i.e., of PUCCH format 0, and corresponding sequence cyclic shifts of Tables 2-3).
With respect to claim 7, Gou teaches:
A method for feeding back a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ), the method performed by a network device (paras. [0006]-[0014], [0062]-[0065], and [0072]-[0075] and electronic device of Figs. 5-6 —a BS can configure a UE send it HARQ feedback, i.e., a HARQ-ACK codebook to a BS) and comprising:
transmitting first downlink control information (DCI) and second DCI, and receiving a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) sequence fed back by user equipment (UE), wherein the first DCI and the second DCI indicate that a same PUCCH sequence carries an HARQ feedback codebook comprising a first HARQ feedback bit for the first DCI and a second HARQ feedback bit for the second DCI, and the PUCCH sequence fed back is a PUCCH format 0 sequence (paras. [0024], [0028], [0035]-[0039], [0043], [0049], and [0051]-[0055]; Tables 1-3 and DCI 1 and DCI 2 and Fig. 4 —a UE can receive, from a BS, a first DCI and a second DCI, i.e., as depicted in Fig. 4, including a PUCCH resource indicator (PRI) indicating a same PUCCH sequence/resource for providing a new, multiplexed/combined HARQ codebook feedback, which the Examiner interprets to correspond to a preconfigured mode for feedback —the number of bits can be no more than 2-bits, i.e., for PUCCH format 0, and “a predefined relationship” may also include “a corresponding sequence cyclic shift,” (time domain) which is equivalent to a sequence “phase rotation” in the frequency domain —thus, the Examiner also interprets the “predefined relationship” of the sequence cyclic shift to correspond to a “preconfigured mode” for feedback —the UE can then transmit the new multiplexed HARQ feedback codebook, i.e., for multi-priority HARQ feedback relating to URLLC (HP) and/or eMBB (LP) communications at paras. [0003]-[0004], via a same PUCCH sequence, i.e., having PUCCH format 0, based on the “preconfigured mode” corresponding to the PRI and/or the sequence cyclic shift);
determining a number of HARQ feedback bits comprised in the HARQ feedback codebook based on a preconfigured mode (paras. [0051]-[0054]; and Tables 2-4 —a BS can receive HARQ feedback for the PUCCH format 0 sequence that includes a multiplexed HARQ codebook feedback HARQ-ACK value comprising two bits representative of feedback for, prioritized first and second DCI-configured PDSCH receptions; and
determining values of the HARQ feedback bits comprised in the HARQ feedback codebook and DCI corresponding to the HARQ feedback bits comprised in the HARQ feedback codebook based on the number of the HARQ feedback bits and the preconfigured mode (paras. [0051]-[0054]; and Tables 2-4 —a BS can determine a multiplexed HARQ codebook feedback to comprise two bits representative of feedback for a PUCCH format 0 sequence, as preconfigured —prioritized first and second DCI-configured PDSCH receptions, can have corresponding HARQ feedback bits as shown in Tables 2 and 3, where “1” is an ACK and “0” is NACK).
With respect to claim 17, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 17 is directed to a communication device with a transceiver, a memory, and a processor (paras. [0006]-[0014], [0062]-[0065], and [0072]-[0075]; and electronic device of Figs. 5-6, which has a processor, a transceiver, and a memory). As such, claim 17 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Guo, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 18, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 7, except claim 18 is directed to a communication device with a transceiver, a memory, and a processor (paras. [0006]-[0014], [0062]-[0065], and [0072]-[0075]; and electronic device of Figs. 5-6, which has a processor, a transceiver, and a memory). As such, claim 18 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Guo, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 7.
With respect to claim 19, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory computer storage medium (para. [0060]; and electronic device of Figs. 5-6). As such, claim 19 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Guo, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 20, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 7, except claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer storage medium (para. [0060]; and electronic device of Figs. 5-6). As such, claim 20 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Guo, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 7.
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.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gou in view of US PG Pub. 2023/0019024 A1, Stare et al. (hereinafter “Stare”)
With Respect to claim 2, Guo teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a preconfigured mode comprises a sequence cyclic shift (paras. [0052]-[0054], and Tables 1-3 —a cyclic shift is equivalent to a phase rotation in the time domain).
However, Gou does not explicitly teach:
its preconfigured mode comprising a rotation mode, and
conducting phase rotation on the PUCCH sequence in a frequency domain.
Stare does teach:
a preconfigured mode comprising a rotation mode, and
conducting phase rotation on a PUCCH sequence in a frequency domain (paras. [0060], and [0105]-[0107]; and Fig. 6A —a preconfigured mode can comprise a linear phase-rotation in the frequency domain, which is equivalent to applying a cyclic shift in the time domain, where HARQ feedback can be mapped to two information bits for a corresponding PUCCH sequence, i.e., for PUCCH format 0, considering phase rotation, as depicted in Fig. 6A).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gou’s conducting of a sequence cyclic shift on its PUCCH sequence in the time domain to analogously include conducting a phase rotation on its PUCCH sequence in the frequency domain, as taught by Stare.
The motivation for doing so would have been to perform the preconfigured mode operation (sequence cyclic shift) in terms of a frequency domain (sequence phase rotation), as recognized by Stare (paras. [0060], and [0105]-[0107]; and Fig. 6A).
With respect to claim 10, this claim recites similar feature to dependent claim 2. As such, claim 10 is likewise rejection under
§
103, based on Guo in view of Stare, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 2.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gou in view of Stare, in further view of US PG Pub. 2022/0109530 A1, Wilhelmsson et al. (hereinafter “Wilhelmsson”)
With respect to claim 3, Gou in view of Stare teaches the method according to claim 2.
However, Gou does not explicitly teach:
conducting phase rotation on the PUCCH sequence in a predetermined direction in the frequency domain.
Stare does teach:
conducting phase rotation on a PUCCH sequence in a predetermined direction in the frequency domain (paras. [0060], and [0105]-[0107]; and Fig. 6A —the clockwise direction phase-rotation of 90o yields the (N, N) HARQ feedback on the PUCCH sequence —likewise, a counter-clockwise direction phase-rotation of 90o yields the (A, A) HARQ feedback on the PUCCH sequence).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gou’s conducting of a sequence cyclic shift on its PUCCH sequence in the time domain to analogously include conducting a phase rotation on its PUCCH sequence in the frequency domain, as taught by Stare.
The motivation for doing so would have been to perform the preconfigured mode operation (sequence cyclic shift) in terms of a frequency domain (sequence phase rotation), as recognized by Stare (paras. [0060], and [0105]-[0107]; and Fig. 6A).
However, Gou in view of Stare does not explicitly teach:
conducting phase rotation by 45o in the frequency domain for HARQ information.
Wilhelmsson does teach:
conducting phase rotation by 45o in the frequency domain for HARQ information (paras. [0037]-[0040], [0047], [0074], and [0214]-[0215]; and Fig. 15 —a phase-rotation by 45o can be performed on a HARQ data in the frequency domain constellation, as depicted in Fig. 15).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gou in view of Stare’s conducting of a phase rotation on a PUCCH sequence in a predetermined direction, with the specific phase shift of 45o in the frequency domain, as taught by Wilhelmsson.
The motivation for doing so would have been to perform a preconfigured mode phase shift in the frequency domain via phase rotation as a scaling tool to improve HARQ redundancy), as recognized by Wilhelmsson (paras. [0037]-[0040], [0047], [0074], and [0214]-[0215]; and Fig. 15).
With respect to claim 11, this claim recites similar feature to dependent claim 3. As such, claim 11 is likewise rejection under
§
103, based on Guo in view of Stare and Wilhelmsson, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 3.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gou in view of US PG Pub. 2023/0199535 A1, Dimou et al. (hereinafter “Dimou”).
With respect to claim 6, Gou teaches the method according to claim 1
However, Gou does not explicitly teach:
determining the preconfigured mode based on a radio resource control (RRC) configuration message received from the network device.
Dimou does teach:
determining the preconfigured mode based on a radio resource control (RRC) configuration message received from the network device (paras. [0139], [0167], and [0193]; and Figs. 7A-C —a BS can send a UE an RRC message to configure the UE to perform HARQ feedback utilizing cyclic-shift/phase-shift mapping, in a preconfigured feedback mode).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gou’s configuration of a preconfigured mode for performing cyclic-shift on a PUCCH sequence, with pre-configuration of phase-shift mapping via RRC message, as taught by Dimou.
The motivation for doing so would have been to use RRC messaging to configure a UE with a preconfigured phase-shift mapping for HARQ feedback, as recognized by Dimou (paras. [0139], [0167], and [0193]; and Figs. 7A-C).
With respect to claim 14, this claim recites similar feature to dependent claim 6. As such, claim 14 is likewise rejection under
§
103, based on Guo in view of Dimou, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 8-9, 12-13 and 21-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claims 4 and 12, none of the identified prior art fairly teaches/suggests the claimed features of: “wherein the conducting phase rotation on the PUCCH sequence in a frequency domain comprises at least one of: conducting, on a condition that the first HARQ feedback bit and the second HARQ feedback bit have a same value, phase rotation on the PUCCH sequence by 15o in a predetermined direction in the frequency domain; or conducting, on a condition that the first HARQ feedback bit and the second HARQ feedback bit have different values, phase rotation on the PUCCH sequence by 75o in a predetermined direction in the frequency domain,” as recited in claim 4, OR similarly “wherein the rotation mode comprises a second rotation mode, and the second rotation mode instructs the UE to conduct, on a condition that the first HARQ feedback bit and the second HARQ feedback bit have a same value, phase rotation on the PUCCH sequence carrying the HARQ feedback codebook by 15o in a predetermined direction in the frequency domain, and to conduct, on a condition that the first HARQ feedback bit and the second HARQ feedback bit have different values, phase rotation on the PUCCH sequence carrying the HARQ feedback codebook by 75o in a predetermined direction in the frequency domain,” as recited in claim 12.
With respect to claims 5, 13, 21, and 22, none of the identified prior art fairly teaches/suggests the claimed features of: “wherein on a condition that a priority of the first HARQ feedback bit is higher than a priority of the second HARQ feedback bit, the predetermined direction is a clockwise direction; and on a condition that a priority of the first HARQ feedback bit is lower than a priority of the second HARQ feedback bit, the predetermined direction is an anticlockwise direction, wherein the first HARQ feedback bit is a first bit in the HARQ feedback codebook, and the second HARQ feedback bit is a second bit in the HARQ feedback codebook.”
With respect to claim 8, none of the identified prior art fairly teaches/suggests the claimed features of: “wherein the determining a number of HARQ feedback bits comprised in the HARQ feedback codebook based on a preconfigured mode comprises: determining a correlation between the PUCCH sequence fed back and a plurality of local PUCCH sequences based on the preconfigured mode, wherein the plurality of local PUCCH sequences comprise all possible first local PUCCH sequences corresponding to two HARQ feedback bits and a plurality of second local PUCCH sequences obtained by separately processing the plurality of first local PUCCH sequences based on the preconfigured mode, and each local PUCCH sequence is a PUCCH format 0 sequence; determining, based on the correlation, whether the PUCCH sequence fed back is a PUCCH sequence processed by the UE based on the preconfigured mode or a PUCCH sequence not processed by the UE based on the preconfigured mode; determining, on a condition that the PUCCH sequence fed back is the PUCCH sequence processed by the UE based on the preconfigured mode, that the HARQ feedback codebook comprises two HARQ feedback bits; and determining, on a condition that the PUCCH sequence fed back is the PUCCH sequence not processed by the UE based on the preconfigured mode, that the HARQ feedback codebook only comprises one HARQ feedback bit.”
With respect to claim 9, none of the identified prior art fairly teaches/suggests the claimed features of: “wherein the determining values of the HARQ feedback bits comprised in the HARQ feedback codebook and DCI corresponding to the HARQ feedback bits comprised in the HARQ feedback codebook based on the number of the HARQ feedback bits and the preconfigured mode comprises: determining a correlation between the PUCCH sequence fed back and a plurality of local PUCCH sequences based on the number of the HARQ feedback bits and the preconfigured mode, wherein on a condition that the number of the HARQ feedback bits is two HARQ feedback bits, the plurality of local PUCCH sequences comprise a plurality of second local PUCCH sequences obtained by separately processing all possible first local PUCCH sequences corresponding to the two HARQ feedback bits based on the preconfigured mode; and on a condition that the number of the HARQ feedback bits is one HARQ feedback bit, the plurality of local PUCCH sequences comprise all possible third local PUCCH sequences corresponding to the one HARQ feedback bit, and each local PUCCH sequence is a PUCCH format 0 sequence; determining the value of the HARQ feedback bit comprised in the HARQ feedback codebook based on the correlation; determining, on a condition that the number of the HARQ feedback bits is two HARQ feedback bits, that the HARQ feedback bits comprised in the HARQ feedback codebook correspond to the first DCI and the second DCI respectively; and determining, on a condition that the number of the HARQ feedback bits is one HARQ feedback bit, that the HARQ feedback bit comprised in the HARQ feedback codebook corresponds to higher-priority DCI of the first DCI and the second DCI.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure is as follows:
US PG Pub 2022/0361199 A1, Yin et al.: teaches priority differentiation via cyclic shift for transmissions including HARQ feedback codebooks corresponding to different service types.
US Patent 11,888,592 B2, Islam et al.: teaches a UE that is configured to multiplex HARQ-ACK bits of different priorities in a PUCCH sequence transmission.
US PG Pub 2023/0100939 A1, Dimou et al.: teaches priority differentiation for transmissions including a multiplexed/combined HARQ feedback codebook.
US Patent 12,381,656 B2, Dimou et al.: teaches a UE receiving DCI with codebook info for multiplexing HARQ feedback of a PUCCH sequence with priority HP-LP distinctions.
US PG Pub 2024/0106578 A1, Huschke et al.: teaches configuring a UE with phase-rotation differentiation for HARQ feedback corresponding to a PUCCH 0 sequence.
US Patent 11,917,627 B2, Huang et al.: teaches a UE being configured to multiplexing HARQ feedback of a PUCCH sequence based on various PUCCH format priorities.
US PG Pub 2023/0379094 A1, Yin et al.: teaches a UE multiplexing HARQ feedback corresponding to a PUCCH 0 sequence using bundling and cyclic-shift differentiation.
US Patent 12,531,659 B2, Liu: teaches prioritizing URLLC data HARQ feedback on the PUCCH or PUSCH associated with NR-Rel-17 utilizing various beta offset values for prioritization.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-6pm 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, Moo Jeong can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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.
/Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights