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 .
This office action is in response to the Preliminary amendment filed 09/26/2025.
Claims 1-5, 6-10, 11, 12, 13-16, 17-20 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CHINA 201910758553.6, filed on 08/16/2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/09/2025, 05/01/2026 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaidya et al. ( US 20200044792, hereinafter, Vaidya’s 792 ) in view of WEI et al. ( US 20220263608, Provisional Application 62882227 ).
Regarding to the claim 1, Vaidya’s 792 teaches an electronic device for wireless communications, comprising:
processing circuitry configured to:
acquire Downlink Control Information (DCI) from a base station (BS) [see Paragraph 0129] ([0129] In step 1214 the first wireless communications device, which is a base station, transmits from the first wireless communications device to the second wireless communications device, a HARQ Off Indicator, set to indicate HARQ is disabled, said HARQ Off Indicator being transmitted in a downlink control information (DCI) format, e .g., DCI format 1_0 or DCI format 1_1, scheduling message. In some embodiments, the HARQ Off Indicator is a one bit value set to a predetermined value, e.g., 1, when HARQ is disabled. Operation proceeds from step 1214 to step 1216.) ,
determine, based on a first particular field of the DCI, a feedback mechanism of a Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) process is disabled (the HARQ Off Indicator is a one bit value set to a predetermined value, e.g., 1, when HARQ is disabled) [see Paragraph 0129] ;
in a case that the processing circuitry determines that the feedback mechanism of the HARQ process is disabled based on a value of the first particular field consisting of all ‘0’s or the value of the first particular field consisting of all ‘1’s (the HARQ Off Indicator is a one bit value set to a predetermined value, e.g., 1, when HARQ is disabled) [see Paragraphs 0129 & 0232] ,
determine not to send a check result for a data packet back to the BS [see Paragraphs 0129 & 0232 ] ;
determine a function of the first particular field (HARQ Off Indicator ) based on a parameter in radio resource control (RRC) signaling (a SPS HARQ Off Indicator, set to indicate HARQ is disabled in a SPS_CONFIG RRC ) [see paragraph 0232] ,
wherein the parameter in the RRC signaling indicates that the feedback mechanism of the HARQ process is disabled in a case that the first particular field (HARQ Off Indicator ) takes a particular value [see Paragraphs 0232 & 0129 ] .
However, Vaidya’s 792 does not explicitly teach determining whether a Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) process is disabled.
( US 20220263608, Provisional Application 62882227 ), from the same or similar fields of endeavor, teaches acquire Downlink Control Information from a base station ( the UE receives the downlink control information from BS ) [see Figure 6 and Figure 7 and Paragraphs 0007 & 0008 & 0058 & 0059 & 0070 & 0071 & 0072 & 0094 & 0095 & 0097-0099 & 0188 & 0198 & 0212 ] [see Provisional Application 62882227, Pages 09 & 11 & 12 & 13 & 15 & 17 & 18 & 19 ] ;
determine, at least based on a combination of a first particular field and another particular field of the DCI , whether a feedback mechanism of a Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request process is disabled, wherein, in a case of determining that the feedback mechanism of the Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request process is disabled
( based on a combination of multiple fields of DCI, the UE determines whether to enable / disable the corresponding HARQ feedback based checking the values of the first field and the second fields of the DCI ) [see Page 0095 ] [ the Provisional Application 62882227, Page 12 ] , a check result (ACK or NACK for the data packet ) for a data packet is not fed back to the base station ( HARQ_feedback timing indicator indicates the HARQ-ACK is not needed ) [see Paragraph 0094] [ the Provisional Application 62882227, Page 09 ].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify the system of Vaidya’s 792 in view of US 20220263608 because US 20220263608 suggests that examples described herein may provide advantages such as more efficient control information signaling, increased reliability of wireless communications, and/or reduced transmission latencies.
Regarding to the claim 4, Vaidya’s 792 further teaches wherein in a case that the processing circuitry determines that the feedback mechanism of the HARQ process is not disabled based on the first particular field including a value other all ‘0’ or all ‘1’ , the processing circuitry is further configured to send the check result for the data packet back to the BS [see Paragraphs 0232 & 0129].
Regarding to the claim 5, Vaidya’s 792 further teaches wherein the first particular field further comprises a HARQ_feedback timing indicator [see Paragraphs 0232 & 0129].
Regarding to the claim 6, Vaidya’s 792 teaches electronic device for wireless communications, the electronic device comprising:
processing circuitry configured to:
determine to disable (HARQ Off Indicator ) a feedback mechanism of a Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) process for a user equipment (UE) (the HARQ Off Indicator is a one bit value set to a predetermined value, e.g., 1, when HARQ is disabled) [see Paragraph 0129] [also see the paragraph 0232] ,
in case that the processing circuitry determine to disable the feedback mechanism of the HARQ process for the UE, transmit Downlink Control Information (DCI) to the UE, wherein the DCI includes a value ( the HARQ Off Indicator is a one bit value set to a predetermined value, e.g., 1, when HARQ is disabled) [see Paragraphs 0232 & 0129] ;
indicate to the UE a function of a first particular field (the HARQ Off Indicator ) of the DCI based on a parameter in radio resource control (RRC) signaling ( the HARQ Off Indicator is a one bit value set to a predetermined value, e.g., 1, when HARQ is disabled) [see Paragraphs 0232 & 0129], wherein
the parameter in the RRC signaling indicates that the feedback mechanism of the HARQ process is disabled in a case that the value in the first particular field consists of all ‘0’s or the value consists of all ‘1’ s ( the HARQ Off Indicator is a one bit value set to a predetermined value, e.g., 1, when HARQ is disabled) [see Paragraphs 0232 & 0129].
However, Vaidya’s 792 does not explicitly teach determining whether a Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) process is disabled.
( US 20220263608, Provisional Application 62882227 ), from the same or similar fields of endeavor, teaches acquire Downlink Control Information from a base station ( the UE receives the downlink control information from BS ) [see Figure 6 and Figure 7 and Paragraphs 0007 & 0008 & 0058 & 0059 & 0070 & 0071 & 0072 & 0094 & 0095 & 0097-0099 & 0188 & 0198 & 0212 ] [see Provisional Application 62882227, Pages 09 & 11 & 12 & 13 & 15 & 17 & 18 & 19 ] ;
determine, at least based on a combination of a first particular field and another particular field of the DCI , whether a feedback mechanism of a Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request process is disabled, wherein, in a case of determining that the feedback mechanism of the Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request process is disabled
( based on a combination of multiple fields of DCI, the UE determines whether to enable / disable the corresponding HARQ feedback based checking the values of the first field and the second fields of the DCI ) [see Page 0095 ] [ the Provisional Application 62882227, Page 12 ] , a check result (ACK or NACK for the data packet ) for a data packet is not fed back to the base station ( HARQ_feedback timing indicator indicates the HARQ-ACK is not needed ) [see Paragraph 0094] [ the Provisional Application 62882227, Page 09 ].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify the system of Vaidya’s 792 in view of US 20220263608 because US 20220263608 suggests that examples described herein may provide advantages such as more efficient control information signaling, increased reliability of wireless communications, and/or reduced transmission latencies.
Regarding to the claim 9, claim 9 is rejected in the same ground , or for the same reasons of claim 4, because both claims have the same claim limitations.
Regarding to the claim 10, claim 10 is rejected in the same ground , or for the same reasons of claim 5, because both claims have the same claim limitations.
Regarding to the claim 11, Vaidya’s 792 teaches a method of wireless communications performed by an electronic device, the method comprising:
acquiring Downlink Control Information (DCI) from a base station (BS) [see Paragraph 0129] ([0129] In step 1214 the first wireless communications device, which is a base station, transmits from the first wireless communications device to the second wireless communications device, a HARQ Off Indicator, set to indicate HARQ is disabled, said HARQ Off Indicator being transmitted in a downlink control information (DCI) format, e .g., DCI format 1_0 or DCI format 1_1, scheduling message. In some embodiments, the HARQ Off Indicator is a one bit value set to a predetermined value, e.g., 1, when HARQ is disabled. Operation proceeds from step 1214 to step 1216.) ,
determining, based on a first particular field of the DCI, a feedback mechanism of a Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) process is disabled (the HARQ Off Indicator is a one bit value set to a predetermined value, e.g., 1, when HARQ is disabled) [see Paragraph 0129] ;
in a case that the processing circuitry determines that the feedback mechanism of the HARQ process is disabled based on a value of the first particular field consisting of all ‘0’s or the value of the first particular field consisting of all ‘1’s (the HARQ Off Indicator is a one bit value set to a predetermined value, e.g., 1, when HARQ is disabled) [see Paragraphs 0129 & 0232] ,
determine not to send a check result for a data packet back to the BS [see Paragraphs 0129 & 0232 ] ;
determining a function of the first particular field (HARQ Off Indicator ) based on a parameter in radio resource control (RRC) signaling (a SPS HARQ Off Indicator, set to indicate HARQ is disabled in a SPS_CONFIG RRC ) [see paragraph 0232] ,
wherein the parameter in the RRC signaling indicates that the feedback mechanism of the HARQ process is disabled in a case that the first particular field (HARQ Off Indicator ) takes a particular value [see Paragraphs 0232 & 0129 ] .
However, Vaidya’s 792 does not explicitly teach determining whether a Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) process is disabled.
( US 20220263608, Provisional Application 62882227 ), from the same or similar fields of endeavor, teaches acquiring Downlink Control Information from a base station ( the UE receives the downlink control information from BS ) [see Figure 6 and Figure 7 and Paragraphs 0007 & 0008 & 0058 & 0059 & 0070 & 0071 & 0072 & 0094 & 0095 & 0097-0099 & 0188 & 0198 & 0212 ] [see Provisional Application 62882227, Pages 09 & 11 & 12 & 13 & 15 & 17 & 18 & 19 ] ;
determine, at least based on a combination of a first particular field and another particular field of the DCI , whether a feedback mechanism of a Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request process is disabled, wherein, in a case of determining that the feedback mechanism of the Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request process is disabled
( based on a combination of multiple fields of DCI, the UE determines whether to enable / disable the corresponding HARQ feedback based checking the values of the first field and the second fields of the DCI ) [see Page 0095 ] [ the Provisional Application 62882227, Page 12 ] , a check result (ACK or NACK for the data packet ) for a data packet is not fed back to the base station ( HARQ_feedback timing indicator indicates the HARQ-ACK is not needed ) [see Paragraph 0094] [ the Provisional Application 62882227, Page 09 ].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify the system of Vaidya’s 792 in view of US 20220263608 because US 20220263608 suggests that examples described herein may provide advantages such as more efficient control information signaling, increased reliability of wireless communications, and/or reduced transmission latencies.
Regarding to the claim 12, Vaidya’s 792 teaches a A method of wireless communications performed by an electronic device, the method comprising:
Determining to disable (HARQ Off Indicator ) a feedback mechanism of a Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) process for a user equipment (UE) (the HARQ Off Indicator is a one bit value set to a predetermined value, e.g., 1, when HARQ is disabled) [see Paragraph 0129] [also see the paragraph 0232] ,
in case that the processing circuitry determine to disable the feedback mechanism of the HARQ process for the UE, transmit Downlink Control Information (DCI) to the UE, wherein the DCI includes a value ( the HARQ Off Indicator is a one bit value set to a predetermined value, e.g., 1, when HARQ is disabled) [see Paragraphs 0232 & 0129] ;
indicating to the UE a function of a first particular field (the HARQ Off Indicator ) of the DCI based on a parameter in radio resource control (RRC) signaling ( the HARQ Off Indicator is a one bit value set to a predetermined value, e.g., 1, when HARQ is disabled) [see Paragraphs 0232 & 0129], wherein
the parameter in the RRC signaling indicates that the feedback mechanism of the HARQ process is disabled in a case that the value in the first particular field consists of all ‘0’s or the value consists of all ‘1’ s ( the HARQ Off Indicator is a one bit value set to a predetermined value, e.g., 1, when HARQ is disabled) [see Paragraphs 0232 & 0129].
However, Vaidya’s 792 does not explicitly teach determining whether a Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) process is disabled.
( US 20220263608, Provisional Application 62882227 ), from the same or similar fields of endeavor, teaches acquire Downlink Control Information from a base station ( the UE receives the downlink control information from BS ) [see Figure 6 and Figure 7 and Paragraphs 0007 & 0008 & 0058 & 0059 & 0070 & 0071 & 0072 & 0094 & 0095 & 0097-0099 & 0188 & 0198 & 0212 ] [see Provisional Application 62882227, Pages 09 & 11 & 12 & 13 & 15 & 17 & 18 & 19 ] ;
determine, at least based on a combination of a first particular field and another particular field of the DCI , whether a feedback mechanism of a Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request process is disabled, wherein, in a case of determining that the feedback mechanism of the Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request process is disabled
( based on a combination of multiple fields of DCI, the UE determines whether to enable / disable the corresponding HARQ feedback based checking the values of the first field and the second fields of the DCI ) [see Page 0095 ] [ the Provisional Application 62882227, Page 12 ] , a check result (ACK or NACK for the data packet ) for a data packet is not fed back to the base station ( HARQ_feedback timing indicator indicates the HARQ-ACK is not needed ) [see Paragraph 0094] [ the Provisional Application 62882227, Page 09 ].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify the system of Vaidya’s 792 in view of US 20220263608 because US 20220263608 suggests that examples described herein may provide advantages such as more efficient control information signaling, increased reliability of wireless communications, and/or reduced transmission latencies.
Regarding to the claim 15, claim 15 is rejected in the same ground , or for the same reasons of claim 4, because both claims have the same claim limitations.
Regarding to the claim 16, claim 16 is rejected in the same ground , or for the same reasons of claim 5, because both claims have the same claim limitations.
Regarding to the claim 19, claim 19 is rejected in the same ground , or for the same reasons of claim 4, because both claims have the same claim limitations.
Regarding to the claim 20, claim 20 is rejected in the same ground , or for the same reasons of claim 5, because both claims have the same claim limitations.
Claim(s) 2, 7, 13, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaidya et al. ( US 20200044792, hereinafter, Vaidya’s 792 ) in view of WEI et al. ( US 20220263608, Provisional Application 62882227 ), and further in view of ZHANG et al. ( US 20220247520, hereinafter, ZHANG’s 520).
Regarding to the claim 2, Vaidya’s 792 and ( US 20220263608, Provisional Application 62882227 ) teach the limitations of the claim 1 above.
However, Vaidya’s 792 does not explicitly teach wherein in a case that the processing circuitry determines that the first particular field does not exist or has a default value,
the processing circuitry is further configured to determine, based on a value of the parameter in the RRC signaling, whether the feedback mechanism of the HARQ process is disabled.
ZHANG’s 520, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, teaches wherein in a case that the processing circuitry determines that the first particular field does not exist or has a default value, the processing circuitry is further configured to determine, based on a value of the parameter in the RRC signaling, whether the feedback mechanism of the HARQ process is disabled (In addition, the feedback disabling function may default to be enabled and the UE may disable the HARQ processes based on the at least one indicator without the higher layer signaling indicating whether the feedback disabling function is enabled ) [see Paragraph 0168].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify the combined system ( Vaidya’s 792 and US 20220263608 ), and further in view of ZHANG’s 520 because ZHANG’s 520 suggests that the number of HARQ processes supported by the existing communication system may be a bottleneck of improving system performance.
Regarding to the claim 7, claim 7 is rejected in the same ground , or for the same reasons of claim 2 , because both claims have the same claim limitations.
Regarding to the claim 13, claim 13 is rejected in the same ground , or for the same reasons of claim 2 , because both claims have the same claim limitations.
Regarding to the claim 17, claim 17 is rejected in the same ground , or for the same reasons of claim 2 , because both claims have the same claim limitations.
Claim(s) 3, 8, 14, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaidya et al. ( US 20200044792, hereinafter, Vaidya’s 792 ) in view of WEI et al. ( US 20220263608, Provisional Application 62882227 ), and further in view of Yi et al. ( US 20200396760, hereinafter, Yi’s 760).
Regarding to the claim 3, Vaidya’s 792 and ( US 20220263608, Provisional Application 62882227 ) teach the limitations of the claim 1 above.
However, Vaidya’s 792 does not explicitly teach wherein the first particular field indicates a HARQ feedback resource.
Yi’s 760, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, teaches wherein the first particular field indicates a HARQ feedback resource (The one or more DCI fields may comprise: a NACK indicator field (e.g., indicating whether to send (e.g., transmit) NACK only, ACK/NACK, or ACK only), a CSI request field, CSI indication field (e.g., indicating reference signals for CSI measurement), a zone indicator/ID field (e.g., indicating a zone indicator/ID used for a feedback transmission or a zone indicator/ID for a transmitter), a HARQ feedback field (e.g., indicating enabling HARQ feedback, indicating a HARQ feedback resource)) [see Paragraph 0468].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify the combined system ( Vaidya’s 792 and US 20220263608 ), and further in view of Yi’s 760 because Yi’s 760 suggests that Examples described herein may provide advantages such as more efficient control information signaling, increased reliability of wireless communications, and/or reduced transmission latencies
Regarding to the claim 8, claim 8 is rejected in the same ground , or for the same reasons of claim 3 , because both claims have the same claim limitations.
Regarding to the claim 14, claim 14 is rejected in the same ground , or for the same reasons of claim 3 , because both claims have the same claim limitations.
Regarding to the claim 18, claim 18 is rejected in the same ground , or for the same reasons of claim 3 , because both claims have the same claim limitations.
Double Patenting
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 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. : 12167411. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Claim 1 of the application serial number 18931137
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. : 12167411
An electronic device for wireless communications, comprising:
processing circuitry configured to:
acquire Downlink Control Information (DCI) from a base station (BS),
An electronic device for wireless communications, comprising: processing circuitry, configured to: acquire Downlink Control Information from a base station;
determine, based on a first particular field of the DCI, whether a feedback mechanism of a Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) process is disabled;
in a case that the processing circuitry determines that the feedback mechanism of the HARQ process is disabled based on a value of the first particular field consisting of all ‘0’s or the value of the first particular field consisting of all ‘1’s,
determine not to send a check result for a data packet back to the BS;
determine a function of the first particular field based on a parameter in radio resource control (RRC) signaling,
wherein the parameter in the RRC signaling indicates that the feedback mechanism of the HARQ process is disabled in a case that the first particular field takes a particular value.
determine, at least based on a combination of a first particular field and another particular field of the DCI, whether a feedback mechanism of a Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request process is disabled, wherein, in a case of determining that the feedback mechanism of the Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request process is disabled, a check result for a data packet is not fed back to the base station, wherein, the processing circuitry is further configured to determine a meaning of the first particular field based on a parameter in radio resource control signaling, wherein, a state of the parameter is reserved for indicating that the feedback mechanism of the Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request process is disabled in a case that the combination takes a particular value, wherein, the processing circuitry is further configured to determine, based on a value of the reserved state of the parameter, whether the feedback mechanism of the Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request process is disabled, in a case of determining that the first particular field does not exist or is default, wherein, in a case that the value of the reserved state takes a value of 0 or less than a particular value, the processing circuitry determines that the feedback mechanism of the Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request process is disabled.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG T HO whose telephone number is (571)272-3133. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:00.
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, Charles C Jiang can be reached at 571-270-7191. 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.
/CHUONG T HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights