DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, and 12-14, and 16-18 are presented for examination. Claims 2, 6, 11 and 15 are canceled.
Request for Continued Examination
3. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 08/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s argument filed on 08/12//2026 with respect claims 1 and 10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant contends that the office action fails to teach or suggest the limitation of " determining a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process identifier (ID) based on a product of a number of symbols per slot and a difference of a slot number in a frame and a number of past downlink slots in the frame." As recited in claims 1 and 10.
The Examiner directs the applicant’s attention that the claims 1 and 10 are silent regarding the feature of "a separate number of past downlink slots in the frame." The Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that Noh et al. (US 2018/0270799) in paragraphs [0394], and [398], [404], [0409], and [0425] teaches such limitation. For example, In addition, although the disclosure has been described with reference to the slot, the HARQ process ID may be determined in the time or slot proposed in the disclosure, based on a mini slot having the number of symbols smaller than the number of symbols configuring the slot or a subframe having the larger number of symbols than the number of symbols configuring the slot. See paragraph [0394].
The base station and the terminal can determine the HARQ process ID by Equation having as a factor at least one of a system frame number (SFN), a number N of uplink transmission slots in which an uplink signal transmission according to a second uplink transmission scheme is set in a predetermined interval (M slots) M), an index n (n is an integer ranging from 0 to N−1) of an uplink transmission slot in which an uplink signal transmission according to the second uplink transmission scheme is set, an absolute value (or slot number) of the uplink transmission slot in which an uplink signal transmission according to the second uplink transmission scheme is set, or the total number (K) of the uplink HARQ process IDs. See paragraph [0398].
Also, the applicant contends that the office action fails to teach or suggest the limitation of "determining a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process identifier (ID) based a product of the number of symbols per slot and a number of uplink slots per frame." As recited in claims 1 and 10.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that Noh et al. (US 2018/0270799) in paragraphs [0396]- [398], [0425] teaches such limitation. For example, in this embodiment, a method for configuring a retransmission identifier (hereinafter referred to as HARQ process ID) for uplink signal transmission according to time is proposed. The terminal can determine the HARQ process ID for the uplink signal transmitted according to the second uplink transmission scheme according to the HARQ process ID configuration over the time proposed in the present embodiment. If the uplink transmission configuration information received on the downlink control channel from the base station or the uplink transmission determined by the DCI format for the uplink transmission configuration is a retransmission for the uplink signal transmitted according to the second uplink transmission scheme, for example, if the HARQ process ID included in the received uplink transmission configuration information or the DCI format for uplink transmission configuration is the same as the HARQ process ID for the uplink signal transmitted according to the second uplink transmission scheme determined by the terminal according to the present embodiment and the initial transmission or retransmission identifier, for example, a new data indicator (NDI) information is determined as the configuration of the retransmission for the HARQ process ID (for example, when the NDI value is set to be 1), the terminal determines that the received uplink transmission configuration information is the retransmission for the uplink signal transmitted according to the second uplink transmission scheme and retransmit the uplink signal according to the received uplink transmission configuration. See paragraph [0396].
If the HARQ process ID included in the received uplink transmission configuration information or the DCI format for uplink transmission configuration is the same as the HARQ process ID for the uplink signal transmitted according to the second uplink transmission scheme determined by the terminal according to the present embodiment and the initial transmission or retransmission identifier, for example, it is determined that the new data indicator (NDI) information configures the initial transmission for the HARQ process ID (e.g., when the NDI value is set to be 0), the terminal determines that the base station correctly receives the uplink signal transmitted according to the second uplink transmission scheme through the received uplink transmission configuration information and delete the uplink signal transmitted according to the second uplink transmission scheme from a buffer, an HARQ soft buffer or the like. If the terminal has a signal to be transmitted to the base station through the uplink, the terminal can transmit the uplink signal according to the received uplink transmission configuration information. If the terminal does not have a signal to be transmitted to the base station through the uplink, the terminal cannot transmit the uplink signal according to the received uplink transmission configuration information. Even if the terminal does not have a signal to be transmitted to the base station through the uplink, the terminal can transmit the uplink signal, for example, buffer status report (BSR) information or the like according to the received uplink transmission configuration information. See paragraph [0397].
The base station and the terminal can determine the HARQ process ID by Equation having as a factor at least one of a system frame number (SFN), a number N of uplink transmission slots in which an uplink signal transmission according to a second uplink transmission scheme is set in a predetermined interval (M slots) M), an index n (n is an integer ranging from 0 to N−1) of an uplink transmission slot in which an uplink signal transmission according to the second uplink transmission scheme is set, an absolute value (or slot number) of the uplink transmission slot in which an uplink signal transmission according to the second uplink transmission scheme is set, or the total number (K) of the uplink HARQ process IDs. See paragraph [0398].
Here, N′ and L′ represent the time and the number of frequency resources that are set to enable initial transmission during the transmission of the second uplink signal in the interval, and i′ represents an index of a slot set to enable initial transmission during the transmission of the second uplink signal in the interval. If the uplink transmission slot or the downlink transmission slot can be changed every slot as described above, the HARQ process ID for the uplink transmission resource according to the second uplink transmission scheme for each slot or within the slot is determined using the above Equation or the like, and the predetermined HARQ process ID for the resource in which the uplink initial signal transmission according to the second uplink transmission scheme is performed can be determined as the HARQ process ID for the uplink initial signal transmission according to the second uplink transmission scheme. See paragraph [0425].
As been seen above, it’s clear that Noh teaches or discloses determining a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process identifier (ID) based on a product of a number of symbols per slot and a difference of a slot number in a frame and a number of past downlink slots in the frame, and a product of the number of symbols per slot and a number of uplink slots per frame, wherein the number of uplink slots per frame is determined based on a number of known downlink slots per frame.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL. The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
5. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, and 12-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 1 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. For example, claim 1 recites the limitations of “determining a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process identifier (ID) based on a product of a number of symbols per slot and a difference of a slot number in a frame and a number of past downlink slots in the frame, and a product of the number of symbols per slot.” The disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the limitations above. The applicant’s specification in paragraph [0008] describes that "In another example, a WTRU may receive configuration information including CG uplink resources. Further, the WTRU may determine a HARQ process identifier (ID) based on a number of uplink slots per frame. Moreover, the WTRU may transmit an uplink transmission using the determined HARQ process ID and the CG uplink resources.” Nowhere in the specification or in the drawings does the applicant teach the features of “determining a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process identifier (ID) based on a product of a number of symbols per slot and a difference of a slot number in a frame and a number of past downlink slots in the frame, and a product of the number of symbols per slot.” Independent claim 10 recites similar limitations of claim 1, therefore are rejected for the same reason of claim 1 above. Correction is required. Dependent claims 3-5, 7-9, 12-14, and 16-18 are depend from the base claims and inherently include limitations therein and therefore are rejected under 35 USC 112, 1st paragraph as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
6. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, and 12-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1:
The claim recites “A method for use in a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), the method comprising: receiving configuration information including information regarding configured grant (CG) uplink resources; determining a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process identifier (ID) based on a product of a number of symbols per slot and a difference of a slot number in a frame and a number of past downlink slots in the frame, and a product of the number of symbols per slot and a number of uplink slots per frame, wherein the number of uplink slots per frame is determined based on a number of known downlink slots per frame; and transmitting an uplink transmission using the determined HARQ process ID and the CG uplink resources.”
At Step 1, is the claim directed to a processor, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes, the claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process, and thus directed to a statutory category. At step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “determining a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process identifier (ID) based on a product of a number of symbols per slot and a difference of a slot number in a frame and a number of past downlink slots in the frame, and a product of the number of symbols per slot and a number of uplink slots per frame, wherein the number of uplink slots per frame is determined based on a number of known downlink slots per frame,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. At step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO. The claim recites additional element/s of “receiving configuration information including information regarding configured grant (CG) uplink resources; and transmitting an uplink transmission using the determined HARQ process ID and the CG uplink resources” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because are generic computer function of data mere data gathering and outputting. These extra-solution activities do not provide practical application. At step 2B, Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than judicial exception? NO. The claim recites additional element/s “wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU)” is generic component that is well understood, routine and conventional and does not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. In Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53. See MPEP 2106.05(a). See the prior arts Freda et al. US 20190320467 A1 in Fig. 1B, Lee et al. US 20190098622 A1 in Fig. 1B, and Marinier et al. US 20180006791 A1in fig. 1B teach well known elements. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 10:
The claim recites “A wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), comprising: a processor; and a transceiver operatively coupled to the processor; wherein the WTRU is configured to: receive configuration information including information regarding configured grant (CG) uplink resources; determine a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process identifier (ID) based on a product of a number of symbols per slot and a difference of a slot number in a frame and a number of past downlink slots in the frame, and a product of the number of symbols per slot and a number of uplink slots per frame, wherein the number of uplink slots per frame is determined based on a number of known downlink slots per frame; and transmit an uplink transmission using the determined HARQ process ID and the CG uplink resources.”
At Step 1, is the claim directed to a processor, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes, the claim recites a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU, therefore, is a machine/manufacture, and thus directed to a statutory category. At step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “determine a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process identifier (ID) based on a product of a number of symbols per slot and a difference of a slot number in a frame and a number of past downlink slots in the frame, and a product of the number of symbols per slot and a number of uplink slots per frame, wherein the number of uplink slots per frame is determined based on a number of known downlink slots per frame,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. At step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO. The claim recites additional element/s of “receive configuration information including information regarding configured grant (CG) uplink resources; and transmit an uplink transmission using the determined HARQ process ID and the CG uplink resources” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because are generic computer function of data mere data gathering and outputting. These extra-solution activities do not provide practical application. At step 2B, Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than judicial exception? NO. The claim recites additional element/s “A wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), “a processor,” and “a transceiver” are generic components that are well understood, routine and conventional and do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. In Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53. See MPEP 2106.05(a). See the prior arts Freda et al. US 20190320467 A1 in Fig. 1B, Lee et al. US 20190098622 A1 in Fig. 1B, and Marinier et al. US 20180006791 A1in fig. 1B teach well known elements. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Dependent claims 3-5, 7-9, 12-14, and 16-18 are extended elements of the abstract idea of the independent claims and the claims are abstract in nature falling withing Mental Processes. The dependent claims do not add any meaningful limits to the abstract idea to improve the technology or the computer component and fails to add significantly more than the abstracts idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
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.
7. Claims 1, 3-8, 10, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Noh et al. (US 2018/0270799) "herein after as Noh" in view of Al-Imari (US 2020/0099477).
As per claims 1 and 10:
Noh substantially teaches or discloses a method for use in a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), the method comprising (see (see abstract; paragraph [0016], herein a terminal for receiving a DMRS in a communication system is provided. The terminal includes a transceiver and at least one processor coupled with the transceiver and configured to control the transceiver to receive DMRS configuration information from a base station; paragraph [0064]; and Figs. 5A & 31): receiving configuration information including information regarding configured grant (CG) uplink resources (see abstract, and paragraph [0379], herein the terminal receives the uplink transmission configuration information or the uplink scheduling grant information or the uplink grant which is transmitted on the downlink control channel (e.g., PDCCH) transmitted from the base station, and the scheme of transmitting the uplink information (e.g., uplink data channel (PUSCH)) according to the received uplink transmission configuration information refers to a first uplink transmission scheme or a grant-based uplink transmission scheme); determining a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process identifier (ID) based on a product of a number of symbols per slot and a difference of a slot number in a frame and a number of past downlink slots in the frame (see paragraph [0394], herein the HARQ process ID may be determined in the time or slot proposed in the disclosure, based on a mini slot having the number of symbols smaller than the number of symbols configuring the slot or a subframe having the larger number of symbols than the number of symbols configuring the slot; and paragraph [0398]), and a product of the number of symbols per slot and a number of uplink slots per frame (see paragraph [0396]; herein the terminal can determine the HARQ process ID for the uplink signal transmitted according to the second uplink transmission scheme according to the HARQ process ID configuration over the time proposed in the present embodiment; paragraph [397]- [0398], [0425]; and Fig. 27), wherein the number of uplink slots per frame is determined based on a number of known downlink slots per frame (see paragraph [0127], herein transmitting a signal from a base station to a terminal using a downlink data channel of a physical layer; paragraph [0396], herein If the uplink transmission configuration information received on the downlink control channel from the base station or the uplink transmission determined by the DCI format for the uplink transmission configuration is a retransmission for the uplink signal transmitted according to the second uplink transmission scheme; paragraphs [0398], [0408]; and Fig. 27). Noh does not explicitly teach transmitting an uplink transmission using the determined HARQ process ID and the CG uplink resources. However, Al-Imari in the same the field of endeavor teaches transmitting an uplink transmission using the determined HARQ process ID and the CG uplink resources (see paragraph [0030], herein the network node may send an uplink DCI to the UE with the HARQ process ID for the corresponding uplink configured-grant transmission (e.g., the HARQ process ID of the uplink configured-grant transmission the network node wants to ACK/NACK) and the UL-SCH indicator, and paragraph [0047]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Noh with the teachings of Al-Imari by transmitting an uplink transmission using the determined HARQ process ID and the CG uplink resources. This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the transmitting an uplink transmission using the determined HARQ process ID and the CG uplink resources would have improved the transmission latency (see paragraph [0005] of Al-Imari).
As per claims 3 and 12:
Noh teaches that wherein the number of known downlink slots per frame are included in the received configuration information (see paragraph [0014], herein receiving downlink control information (DCI) for downlink data, and receiving the downlink data and the DMRS based on the DMRS configuration information).
As per claims 4 and 13:
Noh teaches that wherein the number of known downlink slots per frame are included in first indication information received by the WTRU (see paragraph [0369], herein among the signals transmitted from the base station to the terminal a signal expecting a response from terminal may be a first signal; and Fig. 2 [examiner notes: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the signals from the base station to the terminal are downlink signals]).
As per claims 5 and 14:
Noh teaches that wherein the number of known downlink slots per frame are determined by the WTRU (see paragraph [0010], herein transmitting downlink control information (DCI) for downlink data, and transmitting the downlink data and the DMRS based on the DMRS configuration information; and Fig. 2).
As per claims 6 and 15:
Noh teaches that wherein the number of uplink slots per frame is determined based on a number of past downlink slots per frame (see paragraph [0358], herein the uplink/downlink timing relationship between the physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) as the physical channel for the uplink data transmission and the PDCCH as the downlink control channel preceding the PUSCH and a physical hybrid indicator channel (PHICH) as the physical channel to which a downlink HARQ ACK/NACK corresponding to the PUSCH is transmitted; paragraph [0408]; and Fig. 2 [examiner notes: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the uplink slots determined based on a number of past downlink slots since the downlink data have been transmitted before uplink data]).
As per claims 7 and 16:
Noh teaches that wherein the number of past downlink slots in the frame are included in semi-static configuration information received by the WTRU (see paragraph [ 0242], herein the configuration of the DMRS structure may be established semi-statically or dynamically. The simplest method for semi-statically configuring the DMRS structure is a method for configuring the DMRS structure through the high layer signaling; and paragraph [0243]).
As per claims 8 and 17:
Noh teaches that wherein the number of past downlink slots in the frame are included in second indication information received by the WTRU (see paragraph [0349], herein the downlink data may be transmitted on a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) that is a physical channel for downlink data transmission; paragraph [0358]; and Fig. 2).
8. Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Noh et al. (US 2018/0270799) "herein after as Noh" in view of Al-Imari (US 2020/0099477) in further view of Yang et a. (US 2020/0178353 A1) “herein after Yang.”
As per claims 9 and 18:
Noh-Al-Imari as combined does not teach that receiving a slot format indicator (SFI); and adjusting the number of uplink slots per frame based on the SFI. However, Yang in the same the field of endeavor teaches receiving a slot format indicator (SFI) (see paragraph [0021], herein receiving slot format indicator (SFI) adjustment signaling and adjusting a format of a slot based on an SFI adjustment signaling); and adjusting the number of uplink slots per frame based on the SFI (see paragraph [00322], herein adjusts the downlink slot to the uplink slot based on the SFI adjustment signaling ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Noh with the teachings of Al-Imari by receiving a slot format indicator (SFI); and adjusting the number of uplink slots per frame based on the SFI. This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the receiving a slot format indicator (SFI); and adjusting the number of uplink slots per frame based on the SFI would have improved communication flexibility (see paragraph [0035] of Yang).
Examiner Notes
9. When amending the claims, applicants are 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.
Prior Art
10 The prior art of record, considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, is listed in the attached PTO-892 form.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSMAN ALSHACK whose telephone number is (571)272-2069. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI 8:30 AM-5:00 PM EST, also please fax interview request to (571) 273- 2069. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ALBERT DECADY can be reached on 5712723819. 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.
/OSMAN M ALSHACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights