DETAILED ACTION
The present Office action is in response to the application filing on 6 NOVEMBER 2024 and the Information Disclosure Statement.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 04/08/2026 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 § 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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of “computer program/program product” is includes software per se. MPEP § 2106.03(I) states, “Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories includes: […] Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as “data per se”) or a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”) when claimed as a product without any structural recitations.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moderator (Huawei), “FL summary#4 on improving reliability for MBS for RRC_CNNECTED UEs”, 3GPP DRAFT, R1-2202579 (hereinafter “Huawei”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0213044 A1 (hereinafter “Peng”).
Regarding claim 1, Huawei discloses a method for determining a hybrid automatic repeat request-acknowledgment (HARQ-ACK) codebook (Section 2.1, p. 2 describes HARQ-ACK codebooks with unicast PDCCH scheduling and Section 2.1.1, p. 3 describes combining Type-3 codebook with multicast), comprising:
determining(Section 2.1, p. 2, “If a UE is configured with type-3 HARQ-ACK codebook, UE can be configured to support Alt1 orAlt2 [¶] – Alt1: UE generate the Type 3 HARQ-ACK codebook including only unicast PDSCH scheduled by PDCCH with UE-specific RNTI, e.g., C-RNTI [¶] – Alt2: UE generate the Type 3 HARQ-ACK codebook including both unicast and multicast PDSCH scheduled by PDCCH with C-RNTI and one or more multiple G-RNTIs”);
wherein the HARQ-ACK codebook type for the physical downlink channel comprises a type 1 HARQ-ACK codebook and a type 2 HARQ-ACK codebook (Section 2.1.1, p. 3, “When enhanced Type-2 codebook is configured for unicast and when the UE is scheduled to multiplex enhanced Type-2 HARQ-ACK for unicast and with Type-1 or Type-2 HARQ-ACK codebook for multicast in the same PUCCH slot, [¶] UE generates two separate sub-codebooks for unicast and multicast respectively and appends the multicast HARQ-ACK sub-codebook to the unicast HARQ-ACK sub-codebook. [¶] FFS: When UE is configured with Type-3 codebook for unicast, the Type-3 HACK-ACK codebook UE generated does not include the HARQ-ACK for multicast, down-select from: [¶] Opt1: When UE is scheduled to provide Type-3 HARQ-ACK for unicast and Type-1 or Type-2 HARQ-ACK codebook for multicast in the same PUCCH slot, the UE drops the HARQ-ACK for multicast. [¶] Opt2: UE is not scheduled to provide Type-3 HARQ-ACK for unicast and Type-1 or Type-2 HARQ-ACK codebook for multicast in the same PUCCH slot. [¶] FFS for the case when UE is configured with enhanced Type-3 HARQ-ACK codebook for unicast”); and
the scenario type for the physical downlink channel comprises a first scenario and a second scenario, wherein the first scenario is that the terminal reports, on one PUCCH, only a HARQ-ACK corresponding to a specified physical downlink channel received within a candidate PDSCH reception occasion, and the second scenario is a scenario other than the first scenario (Section 2.1.1, p. 3, “When enhanced Type-2 codebook is configured for unicast and when the UE is scheduled to multiplex enhanced Type-2 HARQ-ACK for unicast and with Type-1 or Type-2 HARQ-ACK codebook for multicast in the same PUCCH slot, [¶] UE generates two separate sub-codebooks for unicast and multicast respectively and appends the multicast HARQ-ACK sub-codebook to the unicast HARQ-ACK sub-codebook. [¶] FFS: When UE is configured with Type-3 codebook for unicast, the Type-3 HACK-ACK codebook UE generated does not include the HARQ-ACK for multicast, down-select from: [¶] Opt1: When UE is scheduled to provide Type-3 HARQ-ACK for unicast and Type-1 or Type-2 HARQ-ACK codebook for multicast in the same PUCCH slot, the UE drops the HARQ-ACK for multicast. [¶] Opt2: UE is not scheduled to provide Type-3 HARQ-ACK for unicast and Type-1 or Type-2 HARQ-ACK codebook for multicast in the same PUCCH slot. [¶] FFS for the case when UE is configured with enhanced Type-3 HARQ-ACK codebook for unicast.” Note, Opt2 is the second scenario).
Huawei fails to expressly disclose a terminal.
However, Peng teaches a terminal ([0008], “terminal”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used a terminal, as taught by Peng ([0008]), in Huawei’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify Huawei’s invention, by incorporating Peng’s invention, because Peng describes a reduction to practice with the necessary hardware for implementing a HARQ-ACK codebook while also improving system robustness (Peng: [0011-0013]).
Regarding claim 2, Huawei and Peng disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Huawei discloses wherein the step of determining, by a terminal, a target HARQ-ACK codebook based on a HARQ-ACK codebook type and/or scenario type for a physical downlink channel comprises: in a case that a HARQ-ACK codebook type for a first physical downlink channel is the type 1 HARQ-ACK codebook and a HARQ-ACK codebook type for a second physical downlink channel is the type 2 HARQ-ACK codebook, generating, by the terminal, at least two of the following HARQ-ACK sub-codebooks: a first HARQ-ACK sub-codebook, a second HARQ-ACK sub-codebook, and a third HARQ-ACK sub-codebook, and concatenating the generated HARQ-ACK sub-codebooks to obtain the target HARQ-ACK codebook; wherein the first HARQ-ACK sub-codebook corresponds to the first physical downlink channel, the second HARQ-ACK sub-codebook corresponds to a dynamic grant physical downlink shared channel (DG PDSCH) of the second physical downlink channel, and the third HARQ-ACK sub-codebook corresponds to a semi-persistent scheduling (SPS) PDSCH of the second physical downlink channel; and the first physical downlink channel is a unicast physical downlink channel and the second physical downlink channel is a multicast physical downlink channel, or the first physical downlink channel is a multicast physical downlink channel and the second physical downlink channel is a unicast physical downlink channel (Section 2.1, pp. 1-3, (Nokia) Proposal 9, (CATT) Proposal 5, and (Samsung) Proposal 2. Section 2.5.1, pp 34-36, comments by ZTE, Qualcomm, and Nokia describe UE support with the proposals to include SPS).
Regarding claim 3, Huawei and Peng disclose every limitation of claim 2, as outlined above. Additionally, Huawei discloses wherein the step of generating, by the terminal, a first HARQ-ACK sub-codebook comprises either of the following: in a case that a scenario type for the first physical downlink channel is the first scenario, generating, by the terminal, the first HARQ-ACK sub-codebook based on a received HARQ-ACK corresponding to the first physical downlink channel; or in a case that the scenario type for the first physical downlink channel is the second scenario, determining, by the terminal, a candidate PDSCH reception occasion based on a time domain resource assignment table (TDRA) corresponding to the first physical downlink channel, and generating the first HARQ-ACK sub-codebook based on the candidate PDSCH reception occasion, wherein the first HARQ-ACK sub-codebook comprises a HARQ-ACK sub-codebook corresponding to a DG PDSCH of the first physical downlink channel and/or a HARQ-ACK sub-codebook corresponding to an SPS PDSCH of the first physical downlink channel (Section 2.5.1, pp. 34-35, ZTE comments).
Regarding claim 4, Huawei and Peng disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Huawei discloses wherein the step of determining, by a terminal, a target HARQ-ACK codebook based on a HARQ-ACK codebook type and/or scenario type for a physical downlink channel comprises: in a case that a HARQ-ACK codebook type for a first physical downlink channel is the type 1 HARQ-ACK codebook and a HARQ-ACK codebook type for a second physical downlink channel is the type 2 HARQ-ACK codebook, performing, by the terminal, either of the following: in a case that a scenario type for the first physical downlink channel is the second scenario, generating at least two of the following HARQ-ACK sub-codebooks: a first HARQ-ACK sub-codebook, a second HARQ-ACK sub-codebook, and a third HARQ-ACK sub-codebook, and concatenating the generated HARQ-ACK sub-codebooks to obtain the target HARQ-ACK codebook, wherein the first HARQ-ACK sub-codebook corresponds to the first physical downlink channel, the second HARQ-ACK sub-codebook corresponds to a DG PDSCH of the second physical downlink channel, and the third HARQ-ACK sub-codebook corresponds to an SPS PDSCH of the second physical downlink channel; or in a case that the scenario type for the first physical downlink channel is the first scenario, or in a case that the target HARQ-ACK for feedback comprises only a HARQ-ACK corresponding to an SPS PDSCH of the first physical downlink channel, generating a fourth HARQ-ACK sub-codebook and/or a fifth HARQ-ACK sub-codebook, and concatenating the fourth HARQ-ACK sub-codebook and the fifth HARQ-ACK sub-codebook to obtain the target HARQ-ACK codebook, wherein the fourth HARQ-ACK sub-codebook corresponds to the DG PDSCH of the second physical downlink channel, and the fifth HARQ-ACK sub-codebook corresponds to at least one of the SPS PDSCH of the first physical downlink channel, the SPS PDSCH of the second physical downlink channel, or the specified physical downlink channel in the first physical downlink channel; wherein the first physical downlink channel is a unicast physical downlink channel and the second physical downlink channel is a multicast physical downlink channel, or the first physical downlink channel is a multicast physical downlink channel and the second physical downlink channel is a unicast physical downlink channel (Section 2.3, (DOCOMO) Proposal 1 and (Lenovo) Proposal 9).
Regarding claim 5, Huawei and Peng disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Huawei discloses wherein the specified physical downlink channel comprises any one of the following: a specific PDCCH, wherein the specific PDCCH carries downlink control information (DCI) of a first format, and the DCI of the first format indicates release of SPS PDSCH, a downlink assignment index (DAI) corresponding to the DCI of the first format being 1; a specific PDSCH, wherein the specific PDSCH is scheduled by DCI of a second format, and a DAI corresponding to the DCI of the second format is 1; or at least one SPS PDSCH (Section 2.1, pp. 1-3, (Nokia) Proposal 9, (CATT) Proposal 5, and (Samsung) Proposal 2. Section 2.5.1, pp 34-36, comments by ZTE, Qualcomm, and Nokia describe UE support with the proposals to include SPS).
Regarding claim 6, Huawei and Peng disclose every limitation of claim 5, as outlined above. Additionally, Huawei discloses wherein in a case that the specific PDCCH and/or the specific PDSCH is a unicast physical downlink channel, the DCI of the first format and the DCI of the second format are both DCI 1_0; and in a case that the specific PDCCH and/or the specific PDSCH is a multicast physical downlink channel, the DCI of the first format and the DCI of the second format are DCI 4_1 (Section 2.3, (DOCOMO) Proposal 1 and (Lenovo) Proposal 9).
Regarding claim 7, Huawei and Peng disclose every limitation of claim 5, as outlined above. Additionally, Huawei discloses wherein the specific PDSCH is located in a primary cell Pcell (Section 2.1, p. 2, (Qualcomm) Proposal 1, (Qualcomm) Proposal 2, and (Lenovo) Proposal 8).
Regarding claim 8, Huawei and Peng disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Huawei discloses wherein the physical downlink channel comprises a physical downlink shared channel and a physical downlink control channel (Section 2.1, pp. 1-3, (Nokia) Proposal 9, (CATT) Proposal 5, (Samsung) Proposal 2, and (Qualcomm) Proposal 2. Section 2.5.1, pp 34-36, comments by ZTE, Qualcomm, and Nokia).
Regarding claim 9, the limitations are the same as those in claim 1. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations are the same as those in claim 2. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations are the same as those in claim 3. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 3 applies equally as well to claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations are the same as those in claim 4. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 4 applies equally as well to claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations are the same as those in claim 5. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 5 applies equally as well to claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations are the same as those in claim 6. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 6 applies equally as well to claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations are the same as those in claim 7. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 7 applies equally as well to claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations are the same as those in claim 8. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 8 applies equally as well to claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations are the same as those in claim 1. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations are the same as those in claim 2. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations are the same as those in claim 1. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations are the same as those in claim 1. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STUART D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-0677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 AM - 5PM EST.
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, William Vaughn can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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.
/STUART D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights