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
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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 29-31, 33-35, 37-45 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qualcomm (Impact of ACK/NACK transmission to NR-U DRX).
Regarding claims 29, 37 and 47. Qualcomm discloses a method of operating a communication device of a communications network, the method comprising: receiving a downlink, DL, hybrid automatic repeat request, HARQ, message for DL semi-persistent scheduling, SPS, from a network node in the communications network (see at least figures 1-4); determining that HARQ feedback has not been transmitted to the network node in response to the DL HARQ message within a period of time (see at least section 1); and responsive to determining that the HARQ feedback has not be transmitted to the network node within the period of time, initiating a timer associated with monitoring for retransmission of the DL HARQ message (see at least section 2).
Regarding claims 30 and 38. Qualcomm discloses a method wherein the DL HARQ message comprises a media access control, MAC, protocol data unit, PDU, wherein initiating the timer comprises initiating the timer at an end to the period of time or at a first occasion after the period of time ends that the communication device can receive the retransmission of the DL HARQ message, and wherein monitoring for retransmission of the DL HARQ message comprises monitoring a physical downlink control channel, PDCCH, for downlink control information, DCI, from the network node (see at least section 2).
Regarding claims 31 and 39. Qualcomm discloses a method wherein determining that the HARQ feedback has not be transmitted to the network node within the period of time comprises determining that the response is scheduled during a DL time slot (see at least section 1).
Regarding claims 33, and 41-42. The method of claim 29, wherein the timer comprises an inactivity timer indicating an amount of time that the communication device will wait before monitoring for retransmission of the DL HARQ message, optionally, wherein the inactivity timer comprises a drx-HARQ-RTT-TimerDL timer (see at least section 2).
Regarding claims 34 and 43-44. Qualcomm discloses a method wherein the timer comprises a retransmission timer indicating an amount of time that the communication device will monitor for retransmission of the DL HARQ message, optionally, wherein the retransmission timer comprises a drx-RetransmissionTimerDL timer (see at least section 2).
Regarding claim 40, Qualcomm discloses a method determining that HARQ feedback has not be received from the communication device within the period of time comprises determining that the response to the DL HARQ message has not been received within a predetermined maximum delay (see at least section 2).
Regarding claim 35, Qualcomm discloses a method further comprising monitoring for retransmission of the DL HARQ message from the network node based on the timer (see at least figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 45. Qualcomm discloses a method further comprising retransmitting the DL HARQ message to the communication device based on the timer (see at least section 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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 36 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qualcomm in view of Khoshnevisan et al (US 2021/0029641). Hereinafter referred to as Khoshnevisan.
Regarding claims 36 and 46, Qualcomm discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of receiving configuration information from the network node, the configuration information indicating that the communication device is to initiate the timer in response to failing to transmit the HARQ feedback, wherein initiating the timer comprises initiating the timer based on the configuration information. However, Khoshnevisan, from the same field of endeavor, teaches receiving configuration information from the network node, the configuration information indicating that the communication device is to initiate the timer in response to failing to transmit the HARQ feedback, wherein initiating the timer comprises initiating the timer based on the configuration information (see at least figure 6 and paragraphs [0120]-[0122] [0149]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Khoshnevisan, as indicated, into the communication method of Qualcomm for the purpose of managing feedback transmission.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 32 is 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO_892.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicants must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37C.F.R 1.111(c). In addition, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and pages numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist examiner in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL whose telephone number is (571)270-1416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-4PM 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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights