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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 received on 10/04/2024 have been examined, of which claims 1, 5 and 8 are independent.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites abbreviation “UE” without reciting full form “User Equipment (UE)”at the first recitation.
Claim 10 recites “de-modulation signal”, which appears to be typographical error for “demodulation reference signal” in view of para 54 of the specification as filed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
Claims 5-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12143987. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 16 and 17 of the patent application recite the limitations for receiving control information for blind retransmission scheduling of PUSCH. Claims 5-6 recites similar limitations for receiving blind retransmission scheduling of PDSCH, which would be obvious over each other for shared data channel in uplink and downlink.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “scheduling a blind retransmission”, “a blind retransmission comprises”. It is unclear if both refer to the same limitation or different. Dependent claims are rejected for same reasons.
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (US 20230379097).
Regarding claim 8, Wu teaches an apparatus (base station 1600, fig 16), comprising memory configured to store information (memory, fig 16, para 250) and a processor configured to perform operations (para 248: the processor 1610 may store a program and data required for operations of the base station 1600; fig 16) comprising:
determining one or more communication parameters for use in communicating with a user equipment (UE) based on whether hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback is enabled for the UE (para 191: the total number of DL HARQ processes is 16, the size of HPN (HARQ process number) indication field in DCI is 4 bits, and the number of DL HARQ processes with HARQ feedback function enabled configured by RRC signaling or MAC CE is 4, then when the HPN indication value is 0000, 0001, 0010, 0011, it is determined that PDSCH of corresponding HARQ processes supports HARQ feedback, while when HPN indicates other values, it is determined that PDSCH of corresponding HARQ processes does not support HARQ feedback); and
using at least one of the one or more communication parameters when HARQ feedback is determined to be enabled (para 190: the UE can know which process numbers are used for transmission of PDSCH with HARQ feedback function enabled according to the number of DL HARQ processes with HARQ feedback function enabled configured by RRC signaling or MAC CE, so as to determine whether the corresponding HARQ feedback function is disabled according to the received HPN indication in 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, 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.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah et al. (US 20220264616) in view of Cao et al. (US 20210051525)
Regarding claim 1, Shah teaches an apparatus (abstract: a transceiver device and a scheduling device), comprising a memory to store information and a processor configured to perform operations (para 7: computer program and storage medium) comprising:
scheduling a blind retransmission for transmission to a UE, wherein a blind retransmission comprises control information indicating a physical downlink shared channel/physical uplink shared channel (PDSCH/PUSCH) retransmission and a corresponding PDSCH/PUSCH transmission (para 187: the scheduling device 200 further comprises a transceiver 210, which, in operation, transmits control information over a Physical Downlink Control Channel, PDCCH, the control information indicating a scheduled transmission or retransmission of the data according to the number of blind retransmission);
transmitting the scheduled blind retransmission (fig 18-19; para 220: fig. 18 illustrates the chronological sequence of transmissions between gNB 200 (scheduling device) and UE 100 (transceiver device); fig 18 shows transmission of DCI and new DL data, and the three retransmissions); and
in response to hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgment (HARQ-ACK) feedback, refraining from scheduling a further blind retransmission (fig 18 shows explicit/implicit indication after ack, which stops the retransmission timer and no further retransmissions are scheduled; para 216: the monitoring period may be terminated when an explicit indication to stop the timer is received).
Shah teaches the blind retransmission of the data with or without HARQ. The reference also teaches the explicit/implicit indication to terminate the retransmission procedure. Fig 18 shows that after third retransmission, the ACK is generated, and the gNB sends indication to stop retransmission. The reference is silent regarding reception of the HARQ feedback / NACK or ACK in fig 18. Cao is directed to sensing and resource selection based on priorities for sidelink transmissions.
Cao further teaches receiving hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgment (HARQ-ACK) feedback (para 56: reservation of feedback-based retransmission, is similar to reservation for blind retransmission but allows a UE to consider feedback about the success of earlier data transmissions) (e.g., Hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback; upon receiving feedback indicating that prior transmission or retransmission has been successful (e.g. upon receiving an ACK indicating successful decoding), the UE may release the previously reserved future transmission resources and not perform the retransmission on that reserved transmission resource). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine blind retransmissions and refraining to retransmit after success as taught by Shah with determination of number of retransmission based on channel measurement as taught by Cao for the benefit of improving the reliability of data transmissions as taught by Cao in para 8.
Regarding claim 2, Shah further teaches wherein the processor is configured to perform operations comprising: determining a maximum number of blind retransmissions for scheduling based on uplink or downlink channel (para 166: the round-trip delay depends on the distance between the source node, for instance, a terminal (UE), and a destination node. In NTNs, where signals may transmitted via a satellite or the like, the value of the RTD may be much larger than in terrestrial networks, in a case of a signal being transmitted via a satellite in geostationary orbit, the RTD may be as large as 541.14 ms; para 187: the scheduling device 200 comprises circuitry 220, which, in operation, determines a number of blind retransmissions of data; para 192: the runtime of the timer, is sufficient for the transceiver 110 to receive all of configured number of retransmissions).
Shah indicates that in NTN network, the round trip delay is more for receiving feedback, thus the blind retransmissions are scheduled to increase reliability. However, the reference does not teach the number of blind retransmissions determined based on measurement. Cao is directed to sensing and resource selection based on priorities for sidelink transmissions.
Cao further teaches determining a maximum number of blind retransmissions for scheduling based on uplink or downlink channel measurements (para 52: the UE may be configured or preconfigured to select the number of blind retransmissions up to a predefined number based on criteria such as sensed channel conditions or transmission backlog at the UE). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine blind retransmissions and refraining to retransmit after success as taught by Shah with determination of number of retransmission based on channel measurement as taught by Cao for the benefit of improving the reliability of data transmissions as taught by Cao in para 8.
Regarding claim 3, Shah further teaches determining a redundancy version sequence for the scheduled blind retransmission based on uplink or downlink channel measurements (para 282: gNB indicates the number of blind retransmissions by transmitting a respective retransmission indicator indicating the number of blind retransmissions, the UE 100 (re)starts a respective timer each time DCI for a transmission or retransmission is received via the PDCCH).
Regarding claim 4, Shah further teaches determining a time gap between the scheduled blind retransmission and the further blind retransmission based on uplink or downlink channel measurements (fig 24 showing drx-inactivity timer after each transmission and retransmission; para 266: in fig. 24, each time a PDCCH transmission or retransmission is received by the UE 100, the drx-InactivityTimer is initiated).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 20230379097)
Regarding claim 5, Wu teaches a baseband processor (processor 1510 of UE, fig 15), configured to, when executing instructions stored in a memory (memory 1530, fig 15), perform operations (fig 6: para 104-105: blind retransmissions of PDSCH and PDSCH retransmissions based on HARQ feedback can be used jointly) comprising:
receiving, at a second time prior to the first time, second control information indicating a second blind retransmission of the PDSCH scheduled at a third time (para 97: receiving the DCI for scheduling blind retransmissions of the PDSCH or PUSCH at least once at the soonest during a time interval since receiving the DCI for scheduling the PDSCH or PUSCH and less than the round trip time RTT); and
configuring operation to receive the second blind retransmission of the PDSCH at the third time (para 125: the UE may monitor blind retransmissions of PDSCH or PUSCH within a time window after DCI for scheduling PDSCH or PUSCH or after the PDSCH or PUSCH. The length of the time window may be related to RTT of the PDSCH or PUSCH, which may be predefined or preconfigured; fig 6 shows initial transmission and blind retransmissions received prior to the timing of HARQ-ACK feedback).
Wu reference DCI configurations of initial transmissions, blind retransmissions and the example of joint use of blind retransmission and HARQ feedback. does not explicitly indicate the timing for HARQ feedback. However, Wu shows in fig 6 that HARQ-ACK feedback is transmitted after all (maximum) blind retransmissions, and the HARQ-ACK corresponds to initial transmission (para 145). Thus, Wu further teaches receiving first control information indicating a first blind retransmission of a PDSCH having HARQ feedback scheduled at a first time (para 106-107: when the number of blind retransmissions of the PDSCH received by the UE reaches the maximum number of retransmissions, the hybrid automatic repeat request HARQ feedback is transmitted to the base station, the maximum number of retransmissions is a predefined value or a value configured by RRC signaling or MAC CE; para 145: the UE only feeds back HARQ-ACK to the initial transmissions of PDSCH; fig 6 shows that the HARQ-ACK for initial transmission is scheduled after timing corresponding to the maximum number of retransmission). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine initial transmission and blind retransmissions configuration as taught by Wu with HARQ feedback transmission timing for initial transmission as taught by Wu for the benefit of improving the reliability of data transmissions as taught by Wu in para 108.
Regarding claim 6, Wu further teaches configuring operation to receive the second blind retransmission of the PDSCH at the third time (blind retransmission in fig 6 prior to feedback) in response to detecting a flag in the first control information that indicates that blind retransmissions are supported (para 109: the DCI for scheduling PDSCH or PUSCH includes a field for indicating whether there are blind retransmissions after the scheduled PDSCH or PUSCH).
Regarding claim 7, Wu further teaches configuring operation to receive the second blind retransmission of the PDSCH at the third time in response to determining that a time gap between the first blind retransmission and the second blind retransmission correlates to a time gap indicated in the first control information (para 125: the UE may monitor blind retransmissions of PDSCH or PUSCH within a time window after DCI for scheduling PDSCH or PUSCH or after the PDSCH or PUSCH. The length of the time window may be related to RTT of the PDSCH or PUSCH, which may be predefined or preconfigured).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 20230379097) in view of Hosseini et al. (US 20180227907)
Regarding claim 9, Wu teaches the limitation of parent claim. Wu teaches the parameter comprising HARQ process number, but does not teach DMRS related parameters. Hosseini is directed to reference signal and control data transmission procedures.
Hosseini further teaches wherein the one or more communication parameters comprise a number and position of demodulation reference signals (para 67: at Block 404, the UE can receive a configuration for communicating with a base station according to a first type of RS or a second type of RS, which may indicate to process communications from the base station 105 based on a certain type of RS, such as a CRS (e.g., a one-symbol or two-symbol CRS), a DM-RS, a timeline for communicating feedback for data processed based on the certain type of RS can also correspond to the type of RS; para 70: the base station 105 may transmit sPDCCH over the first symbol of the sTTI if CRS-based sPDSCH (e.g., at least for one-symbol CRS) is configured, or may transmit sPDCCH over the first two symbols of the sTTI if DM-RS-based sPDSCH (or two-symbol CRS) is configured). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine initial transmission and blind retransmissions configuration as taught by Wu with DMRS based parameters related to feedback as taught by Hosseini for the benefit of improving link efficiency as taught by Hosseini in para 43.
Regarding claim 10, Wu fails to teach, but Hosseini further teaches wherein the one or more communication parameters comprise a single-symbol demodulation reference signal and a double-symbol de-modulation signal (para 67: the configuration, which may indicate to process communications from the base station 105 based on a certain type of RS, such as a CRS (e.g., a one-symbol or two-symbol CRS), a DM-RS; para 70: processing data based on DM-RS may require additional time over processing data based on CRS, as the DM-RS may be transmitted over two symbols whereas the CRS may be transmitted over a first symbol in a given sTTI). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine initial transmission and blind retransmissions configuration as taught by Wu with DMRS based parameters related to feedback as taught by Hosseini for the benefit of improving link efficiency as taught by Hosseini in para 43.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RINA C PANCHOLI whose telephone number is (571)272-2679. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm.
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.
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.
/RINA C PANCHOLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477 8/22/2026
Prosecution Insights