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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 15 August 2024 was filed after the mailing date of the patent application on 15 August 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings, received on 15 August 2025, are acceptable for examination.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 26, 32, 33, and 39 are objected to because of the following informalities: Said claims recite “the first and second PUCCH resources” which is unsupported by antecedent basis. In order to improve claim clarity, Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “the first PUCCH resource and the second PUCCH resource”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 26 and 33 are objected to because of the following informalities: Said claims recite “the first and second HARQ-ACK feedbacks” which is unsupported by antecedent basis. In order to improve claim clarity, Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “the first HARQ-ACK feedback and the second HARQ-ACK feedback”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 30, 37, and 38 are objected to because of the following informalities: Said claims recite “the configuration for multiple HARQ-ACK feedback within a slot comprises” which is not supported by antecedent basis. In order to improve claim clarity, the recitations should be amended to reflect the initial recitation in Claim 33 and/or Claim 26. In order to improve claim clarity, Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “the configuration for multiple Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request Acknowledgment (HARQ-ACK) feedback on different symbols within a same slot comprises”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 40 is objected to because of the following informalities: Said claim recites “the first and second PUCCH transmissions” which is not supported by antecedent basis. In order to improve claim clarity, Examiner respectfully suggest amending to “the first PUCCH transmission and the second PUCCH transmission”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 44 is objected to because of the following informalities: Said claims recite “the multiple HARQ-ACK feedback within a same slot comprises” which is not supported by antecedent basis. In order to improve claim clarity, the recitations should be amended to reflect the initial recitation in Claim 40. In order to improve claim clarity, Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “the multiple Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request Acknowledgment (HARQ-ACK) feedback on different symbols within a same slot comprises”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 45 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 45, Claim 45 recites “the first and second PUCCH resources” which renders the claim unclear because the recitation is not supported by antecedent basis and is not previously recited in the claim upon which Claim 45 depends. Examiner respectfully suggests that Applicant amend to “a first PUCCH resource and a second PUCCH resource” in order to improve claim clarity.
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 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 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.
Claims 26, 29, 33, 36, 40, and 43 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Marinier et al. (US 20200196343 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Marinier”).
Regarding Claim 26, Marinier discloses an apparatus comprising:
a memory to store information (¶34-43 & Fig. 1B, Marinier discloses a non-removable memory 130 and/or a removable memory 132 for storage of information); and
a baseband processor coupled to the memory (¶34-43 & Fig. 1B, Marinier discloses a processor 118 coupled to the non-removable memory 130 and/or the removable memory 132), the baseband processor configured to:
receive a configuration for multiple Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request Acknowledgment (HARQ-ACK) feedback on different symbols within a same slot (¶95-98 & Fig. 3, Marinier discloses receiving a first downlink control information (DCI) on a first component carrier (CC) and a second DCI on a second CC for multiple Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request Acknowledgment (HARQ-ACK) feedback on different symbols with a slot 304. Examiner correlates the first PUSCH resource to "a first symbol" and correlates the second PUCCH resource to "a second symbol". Examiner correlates slot 304 to "a same slot");
determine a first Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) resource to carry a first HARQ-ACK feedback and a second PUCCH resource to carry a second HARQ-ACK feedback (¶95-98 & Fig. 3, Marinier discloses determining a OFDM symbol corresponding to a first Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) instance 306 for carrying HARQ-ACK information and a OFDM symbol corresponding to a second Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) instance 308 for carrying HARQ-ACK information), wherein the first and second PUCCH resources are on the different symbols within the same slot (¶95-98 & Fig. 3, Marinier discloses that the OFDM symbol corresponding to the first PUCCH instance 306 and the OFDM symbol corresponding to the second PUCCH instance 308 are different symbols within the same slot 304); and
encode for transmission the first and second PUCCH resources to carry the first and second HARQ-ACK feedbacks on the different symbols within the same slot (¶95-98 & Fig. 3 & ¶141, Marinier discloses encoding and transmitting the first PUCCH instance 306 and the second PUCCH instance 308 to carry HARQ-ACK information on different symbols within the same slot 304).
Regarding Claim 29, Marinier discloses the apparatus of claim 26.
Marinier further discloses wherein the first PUCCH resource and the second PUCCH resource are separated in time by at least one symbol (¶95-98 & Fig. 3, Marinier discloses that the OFDM symbol corresponding to the first PUCCH instance 306 and the OFDM symbol corresponding to the second PUCCH instance 308 are different symbols within the same slot 304. Here, both instances are independently scheduled thus the respective UCI/HARQ instances can be separated by any number of symbols provided the resources still lie within the slot).
Regarding Claim 33, Claim 33 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 26.
Regarding Claim 36, Claim 36 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 29.
Regarding Claim 40, Marinier discloses an apparatus of a base station, the apparatus including:
a Radio Frequency (RF) interface (¶34-43 & Fig. 1B, Marinier discloses a transceiver 120), and
processing circuitry coupled to the RF interface (¶34-43 & Fig. 1B, Marinier discloses a processor 118 coupled to the transceiver 120);
the processing circuitry configured to:
encode a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) for transmission to a User Equipment (UE) (¶95-98 & Fig. 3, Marinier discloses generating a first downlink control information (DCI) for transmission on a first component carrier (CC) and generating a second DCI on a second CC for transmission on a second CC), the PDSCH configured for multiple Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request Acknowledgment (HARQ-ACK) feedback on different symbols within a same slot (¶95-98 & Fig. 3, Marinier discloses that the PDSCH is configured to cause transmission of HARQ-ACK information on a OFDM symbol corresponding to a first Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) instance 306 and a OFDM symbol corresponding to a second Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) instance 308);
receive a first Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) transmission from the UE (¶95-98 & Fig. 3 & ¶141, Marinier discloses receiving HARQ-ACK information on the OFDM symbol corresponding to the first PUCCH instance 306 from a wireless transmit receive unit (WTRU)), the first PUCCH transmission carrying a first HARQ-ACK feedback (¶95-98 & Fig. 3 & ¶141, Marinier discloses that the received transmission over the OFDM symbol corresponding to the first PUCCH instance carries HARQ-ACK information); and
receive a second PUCCH transmission from the UE (¶95-98 & Fig. 3 & ¶141, Marinier discloses receiving HARQ-ACK information on the OFDM symbol corresponding to the second PUCCH instance 308 from the WTRU), the second PUCCH transmission carrying a second HARQ-ACK feedback (¶95-98 & Fig. 3 & ¶141, Marinier discloses that the received transmission over the OFDM symbol corresponding to the second PUCCH instance carries HARQ-ACK information),
wherein the first and second PUCCH transmissions are on the different symbols within the same slot (¶95-98 & Fig. 3, Marinier discloses that the OFDM symbol corresponding to the first PUCCH instance 306 and the OFDM symbol corresponding to the second PUCCH instance 308 are different symbols within the same slot 304).
Regarding Claim 43, Marinier discloses the apparatus of claim 40.
Marinier further discloses wherein the first PUCCH transmission and the second PUCCH transmission are separated in time by at least one symbol (¶95-98 & Fig. 3, Marinier discloses that the OFDM symbol corresponding to the first PUCCH instance 306 and the OFDM symbol corresponding to the second PUCCH instance 308 are different symbols within the same slot 304. Here, both instances are independently scheduled thus the respective UCI/HARQ instances can be separated by any number of symbols provided the resources still lie within the slot).
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 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 27-28, 34-35, and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinier in view of Chen et al. (US 20200403755 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Chen”).
Regarding Claim 27, Marinier discloses the apparatus of claim 26.
However, Marinier does not disclose wherein the baseband processor is further configured to determine the first PUCCH resource based on a first downlink control information (DCI) message; and determine the second PUCCH resource based on a second DCI message.
Chen, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the baseband processor is further configured to
determine the first PUCCH resource based on a first downlink control information (DCI) message (¶81-83 & Fig. 2 (S101) & ¶89, Chen discloses determining a first Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) resource based upon a first downlink control information (DCI) carried by a first Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH)); and
determine the second PUCCH resource based on a second DCI message (¶81-83 & Fig. 2 (S101) & ¶89, Chen discloses determining a second Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) resource based upon a second downlink control information (DCI) carried by a second Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marinier by requiring that the baseband processor is further configured to determine the first PUCCH resource based on a first downlink control information (DCI) message and determine the second PUCCH resource based on a second DCI message as taught by Chen because the reliability and coverage of PUCCH transmission is improved (Chen, ¶120).
Regarding Claim 28, Marinier in view of Chen discloses the apparatus of claim 27.
Chen, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, further teaches wherein the baseband processor is further configured to
determine the first PUCCH resource based on a first PUCCH resource indicator (PRI) in the first DCI message (¶89 & ¶81-83 & Fig. 2 (S101), Chen discloses determining the first PUCCH resource based upon a PUCCH resource indicator fiedll within the first DCI carried by the first PDCCH); and
determine the second PUCCH resource based on a second PUCCH resource indicator (PRI) in the second DCI message (¶89 & ¶81-83 & Fig. 2 (S101), Chen discloses determining the second PUCCH resource based upon a PUCCH resource indicator fiedll within the second DCI carried by the second PDCCH).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marinier in view of Chen by requiring that the baseband processor is further configured to determine the first PUCCH resource based on a first PUCCH resource indicator (PRI) in the first DCI message and determine the second PUCCH resource based on a second PUCCH resource indicator (PRI) in the second DCI message as taught by Chen because the reliability and coverage of PUCCH transmission is improved (Chen, ¶120).
Regarding Claim 34, Claim 34 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 27.
Regarding Claim 35, Claim 35 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 28.
Regarding Claim 41, Claim 41 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 27.
Regarding Claim 42, Claim 42 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 28.
Claims 30 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinier in view of Nemeth et al. (US 20200106586 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Nemeth”).
Regarding Claim 30, Marinier discloses the apparatus of claim 26.
However, Marinier does not disclose wherein the configuration for multiple HARQ-ACK feedback within a slot comprises radio resource configuration (RRC) signaling.
Nemeth, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the configuration for multiple HARQ-ACK feedback within a slot comprises radio resource configuration (RRC) signaling (¶257, Han discloses signaling to configure the transmission of multiple ACK/NACK in a subframe or slot comprises radio resource control (RRC) signaling).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marinier by requiring that the configuration for multiple HARQ-ACK feedback within a slot comprises radio resource configuration (RRC) signaling as taught by Nemeth because the feedback of multiple HARQ procedures in a same slot in mobile communications is enhanced by enhancing the reliability and latency requirements of ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC) traffic (Nemeth, ¶6-8).
Regarding Claim 37, Claim 37 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 30.
Claims 31, 38, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinier in view of Nemeth in further view of KSR.
Regarding Claim 31, Marinier in view of Nemeth discloses the apparatus of claim 26.
Nemeth, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, further teaches wherein the configuration for multiple HARQ-ACK feedback on different symbols within a slot comprises radio resource configuration (RRC) signaling (¶36 & ¶38 & Fig. 4, Nemeth discloses that the configuration for multiple HARQ-ACK feedback on different sub-slots/symbols within the same slot may utilized radio resource control (RRC) signaling).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marinier in view of Nemeth by requiring that the configuration for multiple HARQ-ACK feedback on different symbols within a slot comprises radio resource configuration (RRC) signaling as taught by Nemeth because the feedback of multiple HARQ procedures in a same slot in mobile communications is enhanced by enhancing the reliability and latency requirements of ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC) traffic (Nemeth, ¶6-8).
However, Marinier in view of Nemeth does not disclose UE-specific RRC signaling.
KSR teaches UE-specific RRC signaling (KSR teaches that RRC signaling has two alternatives, namely UE-specific or UE-common, and the substitution of UE-specific in place of UE-common or RRC signaling in general would yield predictable results and would also be “obvious to try”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marinier in view of Nemeth by requiring that the RRC signaling is UE-specific RRC signaling as taught by KSR because the substitution of UE-specific RRC signaling as opposed to another form of RRC signaling would have been “obvious to try” (KSR, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Regarding Claim 38, Claim 38 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 31.
Regarding Claim 44, Claim 44 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 31.
Claims 32, 39, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinier in view of Xu et al. (US 20190349922 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Xu”).
Regarding Claim 32, Marinier discloses the apparatus of claim 26.
However, Marinier does not disclose wherein the first and second PUCCH resources overlap in frequency.
Xu, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the first and second PUCCH resources overlap in frequency (¶95, Xu discloses the first PUCCH resource overlapping with a second PUCCH resource).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marinier by requiring that the first and second PUCCH resources overlap in frequency as taught by Xu because PUCCH transmission is improved by enabling flexibility in PUCCH transmissions (Xu, ¶1-4).
Regarding Claim 39, Claim 39 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 32.
Regarding Claim 45, Claim 45 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 32.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 26, 29, 33, 36, 40, and 43 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 11, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11979236 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘236 Patent”) in view of Marinier.
Regarding Claim 26, Claim 1 of the ‘236 Patent discloses an apparatus comprising:
a baseband processor coupled to the memory (Claim 1 of the ‘236 Patent discloses processing circuitry), the baseband processor configured to:
receive a configuration for multiple Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request Acknowledgment (HARQ-ACK) feedback on different symbols within a same slot (Claim 2 of the ‘236 Patent discloses decode a Downlink Control Information (DCI) from a base station);
determine a first Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) resource to carry a first HARQ-ACK feedback and a second PUCCH resource to carry a second HARQ-ACK feedback (Claim 1 of the ‘236 Patent disclose determine an overlap in time between a plurality of determined Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) resources to carry a respective plurality of Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request Acknowledgment (HARQ-ACK) feedbacks and another determined PUCCH resource to carry an Uplink Control Information (UCI)); and
encode for transmission the first and second PUCCH resources to carry the first and second HARQ-ACK feedbacks on the different symbols within the same slot (Claim 1 of the ‘236 Patent discloses encode the updated PUCCH resource and the determined PUCCH resource for transmission to a base station within one slot).
However, Claim 1 of the ‘236 Patent does not disclose a memory to store information and wherein the first and second PUCCH resources are on the different symbols within the same slot.
Marinier, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches a memory to store information (¶34-43 & Fig. 1B, Marinier discloses a non-removable memory 130 and/or a removable memory 132 for storage of information), and
wherein the first and second PUCCH resources are on the different symbols within the same slot (¶95-98 & Fig. 3, Marinier discloses that the OFDM symbol corresponding to the first PUCCH instance 306 and the OFDM symbol corresponding to the second PUCCH instance 308 are different symbols within the same slot 304).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of the ‘236 Patent by requiring that a memory to store information and the first and second PUCCH resources are on the different symbols within the same slot as taught by Marinier because the transmission of uplink control information (UCI) is improved by altering the transmission profile based upon the type of UCI (Marinier, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 29, Claim 1 of the ‘236 Patent in view of Marinier discloses the apparatus of claim 26.
Marinier, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, further teaches wherein the first PUCCH resource and the second PUCCH resource are separated in time by at least one symbol (¶95-98 & Fig. 3, Marinier discloses that the OFDM symbol corresponding to the first PUCCH instance 306 and the OFDM symbol corresponding to the second PUCCH instance 308 are different symbols within the same slot 304. Here, both instances are independently scheduled thus the respective UCI/HARQ instances can be separated by any number of symbols provided the resources still lie within the slot).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of the ‘236 Patent in view of Marinier by requiring that the first PUCCH resource and the second PUCCH resource are separated in time by at least one symbol as taught by Marinier because the transmission of uplink control information (UCI) is improved by altering the transmission profile based upon the type of UCI (Marinier, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 33, Claim 33 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 26.
Regarding Claim 36, Claim 36 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 29.
Regarding Claim 40, Claim 18 of the ‘236 Patent discloses an apparatus of a base station, the apparatus including:
a Radio Frequency (RF) interface (Claim 18 of the ‘236 Patent discloses a Radio Frequency (RF) interface), and
processing circuitry coupled to the RF interface (Claim 18 of the ‘236 Patent discloses processing circuitry coupled to the RF interface); the processing circuitry configured to:
encode a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) for transmission to a User Equipment (UE), the PDSCH configured for multiple Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request Acknowledgment (HARQ-ACK) feedback on different symbols within a same slot (Claim 18 of the ‘236 Patent discloses encode a Downlink Control Information (DCI) for transmission to a NR User Equipment (UE), the DCI including a PUCCH resource indicator (PRI) field to allow a UE to determine an updated Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) resource from the PRI);
However, Claim 18 of the ‘236 Patent does not disclose receive a first Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) transmission from the UE, the first PUCCH transmission carrying a first HARQ-ACK feedback; and receive a second PUCCH transmission from the UE, the second PUCCH transmission carrying a second HARQ-ACK feedback, wherein the first and second PUCCH transmissions are on the different symbols within the same slot.
Marinier, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches receive a first Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) transmission from the UE (¶95-98 & Fig. 3 & ¶141, Marinier discloses receiving HARQ-ACK information on the OFDM symbol corresponding to the first PUCCH instance 306 from a wireless transmit receive unit (WTRU)), the first PUCCH transmission carrying a first HARQ-ACK feedback (¶95-98 & Fig. 3 & ¶141, Marinier discloses that the received transmission over the OFDM symbol corresponding to the first PUCCH instance carries HARQ-ACK information); and
receive a second PUCCH transmission from the UE (¶95-98 & Fig. 3 & ¶141, Marinier discloses receiving HARQ-ACK information on the OFDM symbol corresponding to the second PUCCH instance 308 from the WTRU), the second PUCCH transmission carrying a second HARQ-ACK feedback (¶95-98 & Fig. 3 & ¶141, Marinier discloses that the received transmission over the OFDM symbol corresponding to the second PUCCH instance carries HARQ-ACK information),
wherein the first and second PUCCH transmissions are on the different symbols within the same slot (¶95-98 & Fig. 3, Marinier discloses that the OFDM symbol corresponding to the first PUCCH instance 306 and the OFDM symbol corresponding to the second PUCCH instance 308 are different symbols within the same slot 304).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of the ‘236 Patent in view of Marinier by receiving a first Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) transmission from the UE, the first PUCCH transmission carrying a first HARQ-ACK feedback and receiving a second PUCCH transmission from the UE, the second PUCCH transmission carrying a second HARQ-ACK feedback where the first and second PUCCH transmissions are on the different symbols within the same slot as taught by Marinier because the transmission of uplink control information (UCI) is improved by altering the transmission profile based upon the type of UCI (Marinier, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 43, Claim 1 of the ‘236 in view of Marinier discloses the apparatus of claim 40.
Marinier, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, further teaches wherein the first PUCCH resource and the second PUCCH resource are separated in time by at least one symbol (¶95-98 & Fig. 3, Marinier discloses that the OFDM symbol corresponding to the first PUCCH instance 306 and the OFDM symbol corresponding to the second PUCCH instance 308 are different symbols within the same slot 304. Here, both instances are independently scheduled thus the respective UCI/HARQ instances can be separated by any number of symbols provided the resources still lie within the slot).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 18 of the ‘236 Patent in view of Marinier by requiring that the first PUCCH resource and the second PUCCH resource are separated in time by at least one symbol as taught by Marinier because the transmission of uplink control information (UCI) is improved by altering the transmission profile based upon the type of UCI (Marinier, Abstract).
Claims 27-28, 34-35, and 41-42 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 11, 1and 18 of the ‘236 Patent in view of Chen.
Regarding Claim 27, Claim 1 of the ‘236 Patent in view of Marinier discloses the apparatus of claim 26.
However, Claim 1 of the ‘236 Patent in view of Marinier does not disclose wherein the baseband processor is further configured to determine the first PUCCH resource based on a first downlink control information (DCI) message; and determine the second PUCCH resource based on a second DCI message.
Chen, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the baseband processor is further configured to
determine the first PUCCH resource based on a first downlink control information (DCI) message (¶81-83 & Fig. 2 (S101) & ¶89, Chen discloses determining a first Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) resource based upon a first downlink control information (DCI) carried by a first Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH)); and
determine the second PUCCH resource based on a second DCI message (¶81-83 & Fig. 2 (S101) & ¶89, Chen discloses determining a second Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) resource based upon a second downlink control information (DCI) carried by a second Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of the ‘236 Patent in view of Marinier by requiring that the baseband processor is further configured to determine the first PUCCH resource based on a first downlink control information (DCI) message and determine the second PUCCH resource based on a second DCI message as taught by Chen because the reliability and coverage of PUCCH transmission is improved (Chen, ¶120).
Regarding Claim 28, Claim 1 of the ‘236 Patent in view of Marinier in further view of Chen discloses the apparatus of claim 27.
Chen, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, further teaches wherein the baseband processor is further configured to
determine the first PUCCH resource based on a first PUCCH resource indicator (PRI) in the first DCI message (¶89 & ¶81-83 & Fig. 2 (S101), Chen discloses determining the first PUCCH resource based upon a PUCCH resource indicator fiedll within the first DCI carried by the first PDCCH); and
determine the second PUCCH resource based on a second PUCCH resource indicator (PRI) in the second DCI message (¶89 & ¶81-83 & Fig. 2 (S101), Chen discloses determining the second PUCCH resource based upon a PUCCH resource indicator fiedll within the second DCI carried by the second PDCCH).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of the ‘236 Patent in view of Marinier in further view of Chen by requiring that the baseband processor is further configured to determine the first PUCCH resource based on a first PUCCH resource indicator (PRI) in the first DCI message and determine the second PUCCH resource based on a second PUCCH resource indicator (PRI) in the second DCI message as taught by Chen because the reliability and coverage of PUCCH transmission is improved (Chen, ¶120).
Regarding Claim 34, Claim 34 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 27.
Regarding Claim 35, Claim 35 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 28.
Regarding Claim 41, Claim 41 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 27.
Regarding Claim 42, Claim 42 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 28.
Claims 30 and 37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 11, and 18 of the ‘236 Patent in view of Nemeth.
Regarding Claim 30, Claim 1 of the ‘236 Patent in view of Marinier discloses the apparatus of claim 26.
However, Claim 1 of the ‘236 Patent in view of Marinier does not disclose wherein the configuration for multiple HARQ-ACK feedback within a slot comprises radio resource configuration (RRC) signaling.
Nemeth, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the configuration for multiple HARQ-ACK feedback within a slot comprises radio resource configuration (RRC) signaling (¶257, Han discloses signaling to configure the transmission of multiple ACK/NACK in a subframe or slot comprises radio resource control (RRC) signaling).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of the ‘236 Patent in view of Marinier by requiring that the configuration for multiple HARQ-ACK feedback within a slot comprises radio resource configuration (RRC) signaling as taught by Nemeth because the feedback of multiple HARQ procedures in a same slot in mobile communications is enhanced by enhancing the reliability and latency requirements of ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC) traffic (Nemeth, ¶6-8).
Regarding Claim 37, Claim 37 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 30.
Claims 31, 38, and 44 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 11, and 18 of the ‘236 Patent in view of Nemeth in view of KSR.
Regarding Claim 31, Claim 1 of the ‘236 Patent in view of Marinier in further view of Nemeth discloses the apparatus of claim 26.
Nemeth, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, further teaches wherein the configuration for multiple HARQ-ACK feedback on different symbols within a slot comprises radio resource configuration (RRC) signaling (¶36 & ¶38 & Fig. 4, Nemeth discloses that the configuration for multiple HARQ-ACK feedback on different sub-slots/symbols within the same slot may utilized radio resource control (RRC) signaling).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of the ‘236 Patent in view of Marinier in further view of Nemeth by requiring that the configuration for multiple HARQ-ACK feedback on different symbols within a slot comprises radio resource configuration (RRC) signaling as taught by Nemeth because the feedback of multiple HARQ procedures in a same slot in mobile communications is enhanced by enhancing the reliability and latency requirements of ultra-reliable low-latency communication (URLLC) traffic (Nemeth, ¶6-8).
However, Claim 1 of the ‘236 Patent in view of Marinier in further view of Nemeth does not disclose UE-specific RRC signaling.
KSR teaches UE-specific RRC signaling (KSR teaches that RRC signaling has two alternatives, namely UE-specific or UE-common, and the substitution of UE-specific in place of UE-common or RRC signaling in general would yield predictable results and would also be “obvious to try”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of the ‘236 Patent in view of Marinier in further view of Nemeth by requiring that the RRC signaling is UE-specific RRC signaling as taught by KSR because the substitution of UE-specific RRC signaling as opposed to another form of RRC signaling would have been “obvious to try” (KSR, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Regarding Claim 38, Claim 38 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 31.
Regarding Claim 44, Claim 44 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 31.
Claims 32, 39, and 45 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 11, and 18 of “the ‘236 Patent” in view of Xu.
Regarding Claim 32, Claim 1 of the ‘236 Patent in view of Marinier discloses the apparatus of claim 26.
However, Claim 1 of the ‘236 Patent in view of Marinier does not disclose wherein the first and second PUCCH resources overlap in frequency.
Xu, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the first and second PUCCH resources overlap in frequency (¶95, Xu discloses the first PUCCH resource overlapping with a second PUCCH resource).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of the ‘236 Patent in view of Marinier by requiring that the first and second PUCCH resources overlap in frequency as taught by Xu because PUCCH transmission is improved by enabling flexibility in PUCCH transmissions (Xu, ¶1-4).
Regarding Claim 39, Claim 39 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 32.
Regarding Claim 45, Claim 45 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 32.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC NOWLIN whose telephone number is (313)446-6544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00PM-10:00PM.
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.
/ERIC NOWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights