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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
1. The application of Rastegardoost et al. for the "FEEDBACK INFORMATION PROVISION BASED ON MULTIPLIED NUMBER OF TIME DOMAIN RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS" filed 09/23/2024 has been examined. This application is a Continuation of 18/238,771, filed 08/28/2023 now U.S. Patent # 12,101,789 which is a Continuation of PCT/US2022/039720, filed 08/08/2022, and Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63230408, filed 08/06/2021. The preliminary amendment filed 10/06/2025 has been entered and made of record. Claims 21-40 are pending in the application.
2. The applicant should use this period for response to thoroughly and very closely proof read and review the whole of the application for correct correlation between reference numerals in the textual portion of the Specification and Drawings along with any minor spelling errors, general typographical errors, accuracy, assurance of proper use for Trademarks TM, and other legal symbols @, where required, and clarity of meaning in the Specification, Drawings, and specifically the claims (i.e., provide proper antecedent basis for “the'' and “said'' within each
claim). Minor typographical errors could render a Patent unenforceable and so the applicant is
strongly encouraged to aid in this endeavor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103 and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103.
5. Claims 21, 32, 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US#11,083,001) in view of Park et al. (US#12,022,401).
Regarding claim 21, the references disclose a method and device for receiving and transmitting data & control information in wireless networks, according to the essential features of the claim. Choi et al. (US#11,083,001) discloses a wireless device comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions (see Fig. 14, Col. 30, lines 1-15 for the structure of the UE 1400 includes processor 1410, memory 1405) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the wireless device to: receive configuration parameters indicating a maximum number of time resources for physical downlink shared channels (PDSCHs) for a cell (Fig. 10; steps S1000, S1010, S1020; Col.24; lines 1-35: UE receives from a BS a configuration of a repeated DL transmissions over time resources including codewords. The BS may form a cell of coverage as shown in Fig.1; Col.7; lines 7-12); receive downlink control information (DCI): scheduling a plurality of PDSCHs in the cell; and indicating a plurality of time resources for the plurality of PDSCHs (Fig. 6; steps S620, S630, S640; Col. 18, lines 10-30 & Col. 18, line 63 to Col. 19, line 21: the UE receives control information DCI that schedules repeated DL transmissions PDSCHs from a BS. The base station may transmit the first PDSCH and the second PDSCH using different frequency resources at the same time. In this case, the first PDSCH and the second PDSCH may be simultaneously transmitted to the user equipment through one slot or one mini-slot): multiply the maximum number of time resources of the cell by a number of codewords of the cell to yield a multiplied number of time resources (Fig. 4; Col. 24, lines 52-57: each of codewords is transmitted in each minislot of the first PDSCH and second PDSCH respectively (TDRA for PDSCHs)); wherein the transmission power is determined based on: the multiplied number of time resources; and a first number of the plurality of time resources (Fig. 10; step S1030, S1040: the UE determines the DL data is successfully received by decoding the codewords and transmit ACK to the BS).
However, Choi reference does not disclose expressly wherein transmitting HARQ-ACK information bits for the plurality of PDSCHs via PUCCH. In the same field of endeavor, Park et al. (US#12,022,401) teaches in Fig. 1 a diagram illustrated a carrier aggregation (CA) system, in which the UE receives Downlink data from cell 1 and cell 2 served by a base station (see Col. 9, lines 42-48). The UE, in particular shown in Fig. 13, Col. 22, lines 24-33, receives PDSCH in a minislot consisting of 3 symbols within n2 slot (TDRA allocation for PDSCH). In Col. 22, lines 34-39, the UE transmits HARQ ACK/NACK via a PUCCH with a determined transmission power (see Fig.4; steps 440, 450; Col. 14, lines 10-19). In Col. 8, line 52 to Col. 9, line 3, the UE performs transmission power control/configures a transmission power value by using parameter received from a base station.
Thus, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed the invention to combine Park’s supporting control of uplink (UL) transmission power into Choi’s transmitting data rapidly and stably for ultra-low latency and high-reliability communication with the motivation being to provide a method and device for transmission of the feedback transmitted by the UE corresponding to the codewords of the cell.
Regarding claim 32, Choi in view of Park teaches the apparatus of claim 1 examined above, Choi et al. (US#11,083,001) further teaches wherein the configuration parameters further indicate, for each cell of a plurality of cells comprising the cell, a respective a maximum number of time resources for PDSCHs (Fig. 10; steps S1000, S1010, S1020; Col.24; lines 1-35: UE receives from a BS a configuration of a repeated DL transmissions over time resources including codewords. The BS may form a cell of coverage as shown in Fig.1; Col.7; lines 7-12).
Regarding claim 40, It is method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 21 examined above. Therefore, claim 40 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed in paragraph above with respect to claim 21.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 22, 33 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 112 paragraph as set forth above, and in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 23-31 & 34-39 depend on the objected claims above.
7. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest wherein the configuration parameters indicate a time domain resource allocation (TDRA) list, for PDSCHs of the cell, comprising one or more rows; each row, of the one or more rows, indicates up to a second number of time resources for PDSCHs; and a first row, among the one or more rows, indicates the maximum number of time resources for PDSCHs; wherein the instructions further cause the wireless device to receive a plurality of DCIs, comprising the receiving the DCI, wherein each DCI of the plurality of DCIs: schedules a respective plurality of PDSCHs in a respective cell of the plurality of cells; and indicates a respective plurality of time resources for the respective plurality of PDSCHs, as specifically recited in the claims.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Yang et al. (US#8,488,549) method and apparatus for transmitting control info.
The Papasakellariou (US#10,548,096) shows information type mux & power control..
The Karaki et al. (US#11,811,536) shows HARQ feedback
The Matsumura et al. (US#12,543,195) terminal, radio communication method and BS.
The Gerami et al. (US#12,418,365) shows semi-static HARQ codebook for DL-SPS.
The He et al. (US#12,513,713) shows codebook group-based operation with multiple PDSCH scheduling.
The Yang et al. (US#12,308,968) shows control block bundle for retransmission.
The Gao et al. (US#2024/0171323) shows systems and methods for HARQ ACK procedure, and transmission configuration indicator application timeline for beam indication.
9. Applicant's future amendments need to comply with the requirements of MPEP § 714.02, MPEP § 2163.04 and MPEP § 2163.06.
"with respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims." See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should * * * specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). See In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262,191 USPQ at 96 (emphasis added). "The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification." Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm'r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01 (i) and § 1302.01.
Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner's amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1,75(d)(1 ). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced."
"USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2106. "
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. Phan whose telephone number is (571) 272-3149. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri from 6:00 to 3:00.
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, Chirag Shah, can be reached on (571) 272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
11. 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 any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at toll free 1-866-217-9197.
Mphan
09/09/2026
/MAN U PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights