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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to claims filed on 9/3/2024.
Claims 1-6 remain pending in the application.
Examiner’s Note
The preliminary amendment filed on 7/27/2026 was not entered because entry of the amendment would unduly interfere with the preparation of the Office action. See 37 CFR 1.115(b)(2). The examiner spent a significant amount of time on the preparation of an Office action before the preliminary amendment was received. On the date of receipt of the amendment, the examiner had completed claims analysis and the search of prior art of all pending claims and the drafting of the office action.
Furthermore, entry of the preliminary amendment would require significant additional time on the preparation of the Office action. Specifically, entry of the preliminary amendment would require the examiner to perform new searches and consideration because new issues raised and new claims added in the preliminary amendment.
A responsive reply (under 37 CFR 1.111 or 37 CFR 1.113 as appropriate) to this Office action must be timely filed to avoid abandonment.
If this is not a final Office action, applicant may wish to resubmit the amendment along with a responsive reply under 37 CFR 1.111 to ensure proper entry of the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation 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. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “a reception unit configured to”, “a control unit configured to”, “a transmission unit configured to” in claims 1 and 5; “the control unit configured to” in claims 2-4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al. (WO 2021/151237 A1); in view of Zhang et al. (WO 2022/226977).
Regarding claims 1 and 6; Takeda discloses a communication method performed by a terminal, the communication method comprising:
receiving a plurality of downlink shared channels that are scheduled in multiple carriers by a single control information from a base station (the PDCCH of the S Cell 210 may carrier DCI 220 using frequency spectrum 205A for joint-carrier scheduling of the PDSCH 225A on S cell 210 and PDSCH 225B for P(S) cell 215; see paragraph [0074] and Fig. 2C);
generating feedback information related to retransmission control corresponding to the plurality of downlink shared channels (the UE generates and transmits HARQ ACK/NACK to the BS; upon receiving a HARQ NACK from the UE, the BS may retransmit the DL data packet to the UE; see paragraph [0065]);
and transmitting the feedback information to the base station (the UE may transmit a HARQ ACK to the BS when a UE receives the DL data packet successfully; the UE may transmit a HARQ NACK to the BS when the UE fails to receive DL transmission successfully; see paragraph [0065]).
Takeda discloses generating HARQ feedback for PDSCHs transmitting on a single DCI.
Takeda does not explicitly disclose determining a cell for transmitting the feedback information based on an uplink shared channel group.
Zhang discloses wherein the control unit determines a cell for transmitting the feedback information, based on an uplink shared channel group to which the plurality of downlink shared channels belong (the terminal device supports one DCI to schedule PDSCH transmission of at least two serving cells; some cells belong to PUCCH group 1 and some cells belong to PUCCH group 2; the terminal device sends on the first PUCCH resource (PUCCH-cell #1), HARQ information corresponding to the PDSCHs of the at least two serving cell; see paragraphs [0121], [0141] – [0143]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Takeda and Zhang to determine a cell for transmitting the feedback information based on an uplink shared channel group to solve the capacity problem of the NR PDCCH (see paragraph [0002] of Zhang).
Specifically for claim 1; Takeda discloses a terminal (UE; see Fig. 4) comprising: a reception unit (Transceiver; see Fig. 4), a control unit (Processor; see Fig. 4) and a transmission unit (Transceiver; see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 2; Takeda discloses generating HARQ feedback for PDSCHs transmitting on a single DCI.
Takeda does not explicitly disclose assuming all of the plurality of downlink shared channels belong to a same uplink shared channel group.
Zhang discloses the terminal as claimed in claim 1, wherein the control unit assumes that all of the plurality of downlink shared channels belong to a same uplink shared channel group ((the terminal device supports one DCI to schedule PDSCH transmission of at least two serving cells; some cells belong to PUCCH group 1 and some cells belong to PUCCH group 2; the terminal device sends on the first PUCCH resource (PUCCH-cell #1), HARQ information corresponding to the PDSCHs of the at least two serving cell; see paragraphs [0121], [0141] – [0143]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Takeda and Zhang to assume all of the plurality of PDSCHs belong to a same uplink shared channel group to solve the capacity problem of the NR PDCCH (see paragraph [0002] of Zhang).
Regarding claim 3; Takeda discloses generating HARQ feedback for PDSCHs transmitting on a single DCI.
Takeda does not explicitly disclose determining a cell for transmitting the feedback information for each uplink shared channel group.
Zhang discloses the terminal as claimed in claim 1, wherein the control unit determines a cell for transmitting the feedback information for each uplink shared channel group to which each of the plurality of downlink shared channels belongs (the terminal device supports one DCI to schedule PDSCH transmission of at least two serving cells; some cells belong to PUCCH group 1 and some cells belong to PUCCH group 2; the terminal device sends on the first PUCCH resource (PUCCH-cell #1), HARQ information corresponding to the PDSCHs of the at least two serving cell; see paragraphs [0121], [0141] – [0143]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Takeda and Zhang to determine a cell for transmitting the feedback information for each uplink shared channel group to solve the capacity problem of the NR PDCCH (see paragraph [0002] of Zhang).
Regarding claim 5; Takeda discloses a base station (base station; see Fig. 5) comprising:
a transmission unit (transceiver; see Fig. 5) configured to transmit a plurality of downlink shared channels that are scheduled in multiple carriers by a single control information to a terminal (the PDCCH of the S Cell 210 may carrier DCI 220 using frequency spectrum 205A for joint-carrier scheduling of the PDSCH 225A on S cell 210 and PDSCH 225B for P(S) cell 215; see paragraph [0074] and Fig. 2C); a control unit (processor; see Fig. 5) and a reception unit (transceiver; see Fig. 5) configured to receive the feedback information in the determined cell from the terminal (the UE transmits HARQ ACK/NACK to the BS; upon receiving a HARQ NACK from the UE, the BS may retransmit the DL data packet to the UE; see paragraph [0065]).
Takeda discloses generating HARQ feedback for PDSCHs transmitting on a single DCI.
Takeda does not explicitly disclose determining a cell for transmitting the feedback information based on an uplink shared channel group.
Zhang discloses determining a cell for receiving feedback information related to retransmission control corresponding to the plurality of downlink shared channels, based on an uplink shared channel group to which the plurality of downlink shared channels belong (the network device configures two cell groups for the terminal device; the terminal device supports one DCI to schedule PDSCH transmission of at least two serving cells; some cells belong to PUCCH group 1 and some cells belong to PUCCH group 2; the terminal device sends on the first PUCCH resource (PUCCH-cell #1), HARQ information corresponding to the PDSCHs of the at least two serving cell; see paragraphs [0121], [0141] – [0143]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Takeda and Zhang to determine a cell for transmitting the feedback information based on an uplink shared channel group to solve the capacity problem of the NR PDCCH (see paragraph [0002] of Zhang).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda; in view of Zhang; and in further view of Wang et al. (US 2023/0156704 A1).
Regarding claim 4; the combination of Takeda and Zhang discloses a UE transmits HARQ information after receiving a plurality of PDSCH by a single DCI.
The combination of Takeda and Zhang does not explicitly disclose interpreting information indicating a timing from a PDSCH included in the DCI.
Wang discloses the terminal as claimed in claim 1, wherein the control unit interprets information indicating a timing from a downlink shared channel included in the single control information to the feedback information related to retransmission control by using, as a reference, a specific downlink shared channel among the plurality of downlink shared channels (K1 slot-offset (PDSCH-to-HARQ feedback timing indicator) indicates a slot offset from slot n for reference PDSCH to the corresponding PUCCH carrying HARQ-ACK feedback for PDSCHs scheduled by multi-cell DCI; see paragraph [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Takeda, Zhang and Wang to interpret information indicating a timing from a PDSCH included in the DCI to utilize bandwidth in a more power efficient and flexible manner (see paragraph [0003] of Wang).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NING LI whose telephone number is (571)270-0624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/N.L/Examiner, Art Unit 2415
/MANSOUR OVEISSI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights