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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-16, 18, 19, 23-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Zhang (20220046682).
As per claim 1, Zhang shows the use of an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (e.g., figure 1), configured to cause the UE to: receive a downlink communication associated with a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process identifier (e.g., paragraph 77); initiate a timer associated with the HARQ process identifier in accordance with the downlink communication or in accordance with a feedback communication associated with the downlink communication (e.g., figure 10); and transmit an indication of an event associated with the HARQ process identifier in association with an expiration of the timer (e.g., figure 10 and paragraph 77).
As per claim 2, Zhang shows the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: receive configuration information indicating a value of the timer associated with the HARQ process identifier (e.g., abstract).
As per claim 3, Zhang shows the use of the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to receive the configuration information, are configured to cause the UE to: receive radio resource control signaling including the configuration information indicating the value of the timer (e.g., abstract and paragraph 61).
As per claim 4, Zhang shows the use of the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the configuration information indicates that the value of the timer is to be associated with at least one of the HARQ process identifier, a component carrier of the downlink communication, or a component carrier group for the downlink communication (e.g., abstract).
As per claim 5, Zhang shows the use of the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to initiate the timer associated with the HARQ process identifier, are configured to cause the UE to: initiate the timer in response to receiving at least one of control information associated with the downlink communication, or the downlink communication (e.g., abstract and figure 10).
As per claim 8, Zhang shows the use of the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: receive a second downlink communication associated with the HARQ process identifier; and reinitiate the timer associated with the HARQ process identifier in accordance with at least one of receiving the second downlink communication or transmitting a second feedback communication associated with the second downlink communication, wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to transmit the indication of the event, are configured to cause the UE to transmit, after reinitiating the timer, the indication of the event associated with the HARQ process identifier in association with the expiration of the timer (e.g., figures 10 and 11 and paragraph 74).
As per claim 9, Zhang shows the use of the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: receive configuration information indicating a first value of the timer associated with acknowledgement indications and a second value of the timer associated with negative acknowledgement indications (e.g., abstract and figure 10).
As per claim 10, Zhang shows the use of the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the indication of the event includes one or more of: the HARQ process identifier, a new data indicator associated with the downlink communication, an indication of at least one of a component carrier or a component carrier group associated with receiving the downlink communication, an indication of whether the feedback communication, in accordance with initiating the timer, included at least one of an acknowledgement indication or a negative acknowledgement indication, a time stamp indicating when the expiration of the timer occurred, or a time stamp indicating when initiation of the timer occurred (e.g., paragraph 38 and 83).
As per claim 11, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1.
As per claim 12, Zhang shows the use of transmit a second downlink communication associated with the HARQ process identifier, wherein the one or more processors, to cause the network node to receive the indication of the event, are configured to cause the network node to receive the indication of the event associated with the HARQ process identifier in association with the expiration of the timer being associated with the second downlink communication or being associated with a second feedback communication associated with the second downlink communication (e.g., figures 4-9).
As per claim 13, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 9.
As per claim 14, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 10.
As per claim 15, Zhang shows the use of receive the feedback communication including an acknowledgement indication, where the indication of the event includes an indication with the expiration of the timer is relative to the feedback communication (e.g., figures 4-9)
As per claim 16, Zhang shows the use of the apparatus of claim 15, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the network node to: transmit, before the expiration of the timer, a second downlink communication associated with the HARQ process ID; and perform an automatic repeat request procedure for the second downlink communication, indication that the expiration of the timer is relative to the feedback communication, however Rossbach shows in accordance with the indication that the expiration of the timer is relative to the feedback communication (e.g., figure 4-11 and paragraph 74).
As per claim 18, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1.
As per claim 19, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 9.
As per claim 23, Zhang shows the use of the method of claim 19, wherein the configuration information indicates that the first value and the second value are to be associated with at least one of the HARQ process identifier, a component carrier of the downlink communication, or a component carrier group for the downlink communication (e.g., abstract).
As per claim 24, Zhang shows the use of the method of claim 19, wherein transmitting the indication of the event associated with the HARQ process identifier comprises transmitting the indication of the event associated with the HARQ process identifier in association with an expiration of the second timer (e.g., figure 6).
As per claim 25, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1.
As per claim 26, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 9.
As per claim 27, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 15.
As per claim 28, it is rejected for similar reasons as claims 8, 9 and 15.
As per claim 29, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 4.
As per claim 30, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 24.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (20220046682) in view of Rossbach (20250071779).
As per claim 6, Zhang does not show the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: transmit the feedback communication associated with the downlink communication, wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to initiate the timer associated with the HARQ process identifier, are configured to cause the UE to initiate the timer after transmitting the feedback communication, however Rossbach shows the use of transmit the feedback communication associated with the downlink communication, wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to initiate the timer associated with the HARQ process identifier, are configured to cause the UE to initiate the timer after transmitting the feedback communication (e.g., figure 1 and paragraph 163). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhang with the above limitations of Rossbach because it would provide reducing power consumption.
As per claim 7, Zhang shows the use of the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: terminate the timer in response to receiving control information associated with the downlink communication (e.g., paragraph 79), but does not show wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to initiate the timer after transmitting the feedback communication, are configured to cause the UE to reinitiate the timer after transmitting the feedback communication associated with receiving the downlink communication. Rossbach shows the use of terminate the timer in response to receiving control information associated with the downlink communication, and wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to initiate the timer after transmitting the feedback communication, are configured to cause the UE to reinitiate the timer after transmitting the feedback communication associated with receiving the downlink communication (e.g., paragraphs 95, 112). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhang with the above limitations of Rossbach because it would provide reducing power consumption.
As per claim 20, it is rejected for similar reasons as claim 6.
As per claim 21, it is rejected for similar reasons as claims 6 and 9.
As per claim 22, it is rejected for similar reasons as claims 6 and 9.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (20220046682) in view of Khanka (7978626).
As per claim 17, Zhang shows the use of the indication is associated with the expiration of the timer (e.g., above rejection), but does not show refrain from performing an automatic repeat request procedure. Khanka shows configured to cause the network node to: refrain from performing an automatic repeat request procedure (e.g., abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhang with the above limitations of Khanka because it would provide a reduction in communication overhead and latency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Follansbee whose telephone number is 571-272-3964. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5 pm. 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.
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.
/JOHN A FOLLANSBEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights