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 .
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.
Claims 1, 10, 11, 13, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Blankenship et al. (US 20230291508, supported by provisional application 63/058,184, page 9 of the specification).
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 20, Blankenship teaches to receive, from a base station, downlink control information (DCI) including a request for hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ)-acknowledgment (ACK) (HARQ-ACK) feedback, the HARQ-ACK feedback based on one or more one-shot HARQ-ACK codebooks including one or more bits, wherein the DCI further includes an indicator of one or more enhanced Type 3 HARQ-ACK codebooks ([0075] For DCI format 0_1 and 0_2, some embodiments include a field for “One-shot HARQ-ACK request”); and transmit, to the base station, the HARQ-ACK feedback, the HARQ-ACK feedback including the one or more one-shot HARQ-ACK codebooks including the one or more bits, wherein the one or more on-shot HARQ-ACK codebooks is associated with the one or more enhanced Type 3 HARQ-ACK codebooks ([0078] If the enhanced Type-3 HARQ-ACK codebook is triggered via a DCI scheduling PUSCH (e.g., DCI format 0_1, 0_2), the HARQ-ACK codebook may be transmitted via a PUCCH if the PUCCH resources are also provided by the DCI).
Regarding claim 10, Blankenship teaches wherein the HARQ-ACK feedback corresponds to semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) HARQ ([0077] CG configurations (or SPS configurations) are activated/de-activated by DCI format 0_1 and 0_2 (or 1_1 and 1_2) and [0079] [0079] For DCI format 0_1 or 0_2 triggering Type-3 HARQ-ACK using the fields above, an indication of PUCCH resource and timing of the PUCCH with respect to the triggering DCI may be provided).
Regarding claims 11 and 18, Blankenship teaches comprising at least one of an antenna or a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor (Fig. 4, Antenna 111), wherein the one or more one-shot HARQ-ACK codebooks correspond to the one or more enhanced Type 3 HARQ-ACK codebooks ([0078] If the enhanced Type-3 HARQ-ACK codebook is triggered via a DCI scheduling PUSCH (e.g., DCI format 0_1, 0_2), the HARQ-ACK codebook may be transmitted via a PUCCH if the PUCCH resources are also provided by the DCI).
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blankenship et al. (US 20230291508) in view of ZENG et al. (US 20230337211).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Blankenship does not expressly teach wherein the HARQ-ACK feedback is associated with at least one resource that is unavailable, and wherein the at least one resource that is unavailable is indicated in the DCI including the request for the HARQ-ACK feedback. ZENG teaches [0191] the terminal detects that DCI schedules the semi-static/dynamic flexible symbol for downlink transmission (the dynamic flexible symbol herein means that the SFI first indicates the semi-static flexible symbol as the dynamic flexible symbol), the semi-static flexible symbol is determined as unavailable, and therefore, a PUCCH resource that occupies the semi-static flexible symbol is also determined as unavailable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with ZENG in order to improve reliability of a communication system ([0023], ZENG).
Regarding claim 8, Blankenship does not expressly teach wherein the HARQ-ACK feedback is associated with at least one resource that is unavailable, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to detect that the at least one resource for the HARQ-ACK feedback is unavailable. ZENG teaches [0191] the terminal detects that DCI schedules the semi-static/dynamic flexible symbol for downlink transmission (the dynamic flexible symbol herein means that the SFI first indicates the semi-static flexible symbol as the dynamic flexible symbol), the semi-static flexible symbol is determined as unavailable, and therefore, a PUCCH resource that occupies the semi-static flexible symbol is also determined as unavailable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with ZENG in order to improve reliability of a communication system ([0023], ZENG).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 9, 12, 15-17 and 19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNSOOK CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-1822. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on 5712723940. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EUNSOOK CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights