Patent Application 17365624 - PROCESSING METHOD AND DEVICE - Rejection

Patent Application 17365624 - PROCESSING METHOD AND DEVICE

Title: PROCESSING METHOD AND DEVICE

Application Information

• Invention Title: PROCESSING METHOD AND DEVICE
• Application Number: 17365624
• Submission Date: 2025-05-21T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2021-07-01T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2021-07-01T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 370
• National Sub-Class: 329000
• Examiner Employee Number: 89426
• Art Unit: 2474
• Tech Center: 2400

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 0
• 103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

• US 0038242🔗
• US 0128578🔗
• US 0150183🔗
• US 0394759🔗
• US 0295882🔗
• US 0116156🔗
• US 0053318🔗

Office Action Text

     DETAILED ACTION
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 .

Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.

Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/24/2005 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
	Applicant argues on page 10 that “Yoshioka [US 2022/0038242 A1] at least fails to disclose or suggest "determining one PUCCH resource set from multiple PUCCH resource sets based on the first signaling"” in claim 1 since “It is evident therefrom that multiple PUCCH resource sets are configured for each of URLLC and eMBB, even considering switching between URLLC and eMBB, it is still unable to determine one PUCCH resource set”.  The examiner respectfully disagrees.
	In looking to Yoshioka regarding “PUCCH resource sets”, Yoshioka clearly describes “one or more sets (PUCCH resource sets) each including one or more PUCCH resources” in para. 27 and thus, clearly includes “one PUCCH resource set”.  Further, claim language includes “A processing method, comprising:” and thus, broadest reasonable interpretation does not limit “determining one PUCCH resource set” to “determining only one PUCCH resource set” (i.e. does not exclude additional PUCCH resource sets).  Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are non-persuasive.
	Applicant argues on pages 10-11 regarding newly added limitations of “wherein the signaling comprises a control resource set (CORESET) corresponding to downlink control information (DCI);”, however, applicant’s arguments are moot based on applicant’s amendments changing the scope of the claim, including canceling limitations regarding “priority indication information”, and amending independent claims to include “wherein the signaling comprises a control resource set (CORESET) corresponding to downlink control information (DCI);” and “determining that a time granularity of an interval between a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) to physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) is slot-based or subslot-based based on the CORESET corresponding to the DCI”.
	For completeness, applicant further includes arguments that “the interval between PDCCH and PDSCH is denoted as K2 in the art” on page 11, however, applicant’s own specification contradicts this with “K2 is latency between UL grant reception in DL and UL data (physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH)) transmission” (para. 29), and “the feedback interval K2 is the number of slots, symbols, or sub-slots of an interval between physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) feedback occasion and downlink transmission (PDCCH or PDSCH)” (para. 68) and thus, applicant’s arguments are non-persuasive.

Claim Objections
Claims 1, 20, and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:  Appropriate correction is required.
	Regarding claim 1:  line 10 includes “DCI” which should be “DCI,”.
	Regarding claim 20:  line 10 includes “PDDCH” which should be “PDCCH”.
	Regarding claim 24:  lines 3-4 includes “hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement HARQ-ACK” which should be “hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK)”.

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.

Claim 10 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
	Regarding claim 10:  lines 1-3 include “after the determining that a time domain granularity of a HARQ-ACK codebook is slot-based or sub-slot-based based on the priority indication information”, it is unclear whether “based on the priority indication information” is a new limitation (as “the determining that a time domain granularity of a HARQ-ACK codebook is slot-based or sub-slot-based” is not related to any previously claimed “based on the priority indication information”) or an overlooked clerical error, or something else.  Further obfuscating the limitation, claim language in line 3 includes “slot-based or sub-slot-based” while parent claim 24 includes “slot-based, sub-slot-based, a symbol, or an integer multiple of a fixed time length” and thus, whether the limitation is optional when granularity is “a symbol, or an integer multiple of a fixed time length” is unclear.  Examination continued based on the assumption the limitation includes inadvertent clerical issues and should be “after the determining that a time domain granularity of a HARQ-ACK codebook is slot-based or sub-slot-based ” or “after the determining that a time domain granularity of a HARQ-ACK codebook is slot-based or sub-slot-based based on the signaling” or “after the determining that a time domain granularity of a HARQ-ACK codebook is slot-based, [[or]] sub-slot-based, a symbol, or an integer multiple of a fixed time length based on the signaling”.

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.

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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10, 12-15, and 19-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2020/0128578 A1) hereinafter Park, in view of Yoshioka et al. (US 2022/0038242 A1) hereinafter Yoshioka.
	Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a processing method, comprising: receiving signaling (UE receives configured control resource set (CORESET) for downlink control information (DCI); para. 67); wherein the signaling comprises a control resource set (CORESET) corresponding to downlink control information (DCI) (UE receives CORESET for DCI; para. 67); and determining uplink transmission related information based on the signaling, wherein the determining uplink transmission related information based on the signaling comprises: determining that a time granularity of an interval between a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) to physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) is slot-based or subslot-based (determining granularity between physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) and physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) as gap of transmission time interval (TTI) type; para. [88, 129], TTI type includes slot, mini-slot; para. [61, 64]) based on the CORESET corresponding to the DCI (time-domain scheduling based on configured CORESET for DCI; para. [54, 67]).
	Park does not explicitly disclose wherein the receiving signaling comprises: receiving first signaling and second signaling; wherein the receiving first signaling and second signaling comprises: receiving the DCI, wherein the DCI comprises the first signaling and the second signaling; wherein the determining uplink transmission related information based on the signaling comprises: determining one PUCCH resource set from multiple PUCCH resource sets based on the first signaling; and determining a PUCCH resource from the PUCCH resource set based on the second signaling.
	However, in the same field of endeavor, Yoshioka teaches wherein the receiving signaling comprises: receiving first signaling (determining URLLC / eMBB (service type) based on information (first signaling) in DCI; para. 60-69) and second signaling (UE selects PUCCH resource from among PUCCH resource set based on indication (second signaling) in DCI; para. 56); wherein the receiving first signaling and second signaling comprises: receiving the DCI (UE receiving DCI; para. 35-37), wherein the DCI comprises the first signaling (determining URLLC / eMBB (service type) based on information (first signaling) in DCI; para. 60-69) and the second signaling (UE selects PUCCH resource from among PUCCH resource set based on indication (second signaling) in DCI; para. 56); wherein the determining uplink transmission related information based on the signaling comprises: determining one PUCCH resource set from multiple PUCCH resource sets based on the first signaling (switch (determine one PUCCH resource set) between PUCCH resource set for first configuration and PUCCH resource set for second configuration based on service type; para. [27, 177], determining URLLC / eMBB (service type) based on information (first signaling) in DCI; para. 60-69); and determining a PUCCH resource from the PUCCH resource set based on the second signaling (UE selects PUCCH resource from among PUCCH resource set based on indication (second signaling) in DCI; para. 56).
	Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the technique of Yoshioka to the system of Park, where Park’s clear numerology of timing relationship with enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB), massive machine-type communication (mMTC), and ultra-reliable and low latency communication (URLLC) (para. 03-05) along with Yoshioka’s flexible configuration of transmission timing for acknowledgements with URLLC (para. 06-11) improves user experience by providing standardization for different providers offering various services for users having various equipment.
	Regarding claim 2, the combination of Park and Yoshioka teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
	Park does not explicitly disclose wherein the uplink transmission related information further comprises any one of the following: a time granularity of an interval between physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) feedback occasion and a downlink transmission corresponding to the PUCCH feedback occasion; or a time granularity of an interval between physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) feedback occasion and a downlink transmission corresponding to the PUSCH feedback occasion.
	However, in the same field of endeavor, Yoshioka further teaches wherein the uplink transmission related information (DCI includes K1 of HARQ-ACK (uplink transmission); para. 35) further comprises any one of the following: a time granularity of an interval (K1 related to transmission timing granularity of HARQ-ACK; para. [35, 47]) between physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) feedback occasion (slots related to physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resources; para. [35, 47], HARQ-ACK based on PUCCH resource; para. 36) and a downlink transmission corresponding to the PUCCH feedback occasion (HARQ-ACK for downlink; para. [36-38, 45-47], examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference); or a time granularity of an interval (K1 related to transmission timing granularity of HARQ-ACK; para. [35, 47]) between physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) feedback occasion (send HARQ-ACK on physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) when PUSCH and PUCCH overlap on slot; para. 73) and a downlink transmission corresponding to the PUSCH feedback occasion (HARQ-ACK for downlink; para. [45, 73]).
	Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the technique of Yoshioka to the modified system of Park and Yoshioka, where Park and Yoshioka’s modified system along with Yoshioka’s flexible configuration of transmission timing for acknowledgements with URLLC (para. 06-11) improves user experience by providing standardization for different providers offering various services for users having various equipment.
	Regarding claim 3, the combination of Park and Yoshioka teaches the limitation of previous claim 2.
	Park further teaches wherein the time granularity of the interval is a slot (TTI type includes slot; para. [61, 64]), a sub-slot (TTI type includes mini-slot; para. [61, 64], examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference), a symbol (TTI type includes mini-slot; para. [61, 64], mini-slot formed of symbols; para. [53, 65]), or an integer multiple of a fixed time length (TTI type includes aggregated slots; para. [63-65]).
	Regarding claim 4, the combination of Park and Yoshioka teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
	Park further teaches wherein the uplink transmission related information further comprises an interval between a downlink transmission and an uplink transmission (DCI further defines timing between PDSCH [downlink transmission] and HARQ feedback [uplink transmission]; para. 69).
	Regarding claim 5, the combination of Park and Yoshioka teaches the limitation of previous claim 4.
	Park does not explicitly disclose wherein the interval between a downlink transmission and an uplink transmission comprises any one of the following: an interval starting from a boundary of a slot for the downlink transmission to a boundary of a slot for the uplink transmission; an interval starting from the last symbol for the downlink transmission to the first symbol or the last symbol for the uplink transmission; or an interval starting from a boundary of a sub-slot for the downlink transmission to a boundary of a sub-slot for the uplink transmission.
	However, in the same field of endeavor, Yoshioka further teaches wherein the interval between a downlink transmission and an uplink transmission comprises any one of the following: an interval starting from a boundary of a slot for the downlink transmission (PDSCH at SL #1 (downlink slot boundary); para. 38-39 and Fig. 2) to a boundary of a slot for the uplink transmission (HARQ-ACK at SL #7 (uplink slot boundary) from PDSCH at SL #1 (downlink slot boundary) determined from DCI; para. 36-38 and Fig. 2, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference); an interval starting from the last symbol for the downlink transmission (PDSCH at SL #1; para. 48-50 and Fig. 3, where slot includes symbols thus interval from last symbol) to the first symbol or the last symbol for the uplink transmission (HARQ-ACK at first symbol of SL #7 in one example and last symbol of SL #7 in another example; para. 48-50 and Fig. 3); or an interval starting from a boundary of a sub-slot for the downlink transmission (PDSCH at unit within SL #1 (downlink sub-slot boundary); para. 51-53 and Fig. 4) to a boundary of a sub-slot for the uplink transmission (HARQ-ACK at unit within SL #7 (uplink sub-slot boundary); para. 51-53 and Fig. 4).
	Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the technique of Yoshioka to the modified system of Park and Yoshioka, where Park and Yoshioka’s modified system along with Yoshioka’s flexible configuration of transmission timing for acknowledgements with URLLC (para. 06-11) improves user experience by providing standardization for different providers offering various services for users having various equipment.
	Regarding claim 24, the combination of Park and Yoshioka teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
	Park does not explicitly disclose wherein the determining uplink transmission related information based on the signaling comprises: determining a time domain granularity of a hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement HARQ-ACK codebook based on the signaling; wherein the time domain granularity of the HARQ-ACK codebook is any one of the following: a slot, a sub-slot, a symbol, or an integer multiple of a fixed time length
	However, in the same field of endeavor, Yoshioka further teaches wherein the determining uplink transmission related information based on the signaling comprises: determining a time domain granularity of a hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement HARQ-ACK codebook based on the signaling (determining hybrid automatic repeat request acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) (uplink transmission) on physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resource; para. [36, 39, 101-102, 108, 183], determining HARQ-ACK codebook based on scheduling control information indicating timing indication for HARQ-ACK notified by DCI; para. [69, 77, 79, 83, 87], time unit granularity of HARQ-ACK transmission timing (HARQ-ACK codebook); para. 69); wherein the time domain granularity of the HARQ-ACK codebook is any one of the following: a slot, a sub-slot (when determining time unit granularity of HARQ-ACK smaller than slot (thus determining slot or sub-slot); para. 69, time unit granularity based on Transmission Time Interval (TTI) that as slot or mini slot; para. 206, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference), or an integer multiple of a fixed time length (timing indication is slot aggregation; para. [47-48, 61, 63-65], timing relationship being time unit or slot index; para. 88).
	Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the technique of Yoshioka to the modified system of Park and Yoshioka, where Park and Yoshioka’s modified system along with Yoshioka’s flexible configuration of transmission timing for acknowledgements with URLLC (para. 06-11) improves user experience by providing standardization for different providers offering various services for users having various equipment.
	Regarding claim 10, the combination of Park and Yoshioka teaches the limitation of previous claim 24.
	Park does not explicitly disclose wherein after the determining that a time domain granularity of a HARQ-ACK codebook is slot-based or sub-slot-based based on the priority indication information, the method further comprises: determining, based on the time domain granularity of the HARQ-ACK codebook, a set of HARQ-ACKs fed back in a feedback window.
	Yoshioka further teaches wherein after the determining that a time domain granularity of a HARQ-ACK codebook is slot-based or sub-slot-based based on the priority indication information (when determining time unit granularity of HARQ-ACK smaller than slot (thus determining slot or sub-slot); para. 69), the method further comprises: determining, based on the time domain granularity of the HARQ-ACK codebook, a set of HARQ-ACKs fed back in a feedback window (for slot-based, downlink at SL #1, use K1=6 to determine HARQ-ACK at SL #7 (feedback window); para. 38-39 and Fig. 2, for sub-slot based, downlink at SL #1 uses K1=11 to determine HARQ-ACK at n+10 in SL #7 (feedback window); para. 48-49 and Fig. 3).
	Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the technique of Yoshioka to the modified system of Park and Yoshioka, where Park and Yoshioka’s modified system along with Yoshioka’s flexible configuration of transmission timing for acknowledgements with URLLC (para. 06-11) improves user experience by providing standardization for different providers offering various services for users having various equipment.
	Regarding claim 12, the combination of Park and teaches the limitation of previous claim 1.
	Park further teaches wherein the signaling further comprises one or more of the following: DCI format related information (separate DCI format for each TTI; para. 67), identifier related information (TTI indication information according to subcarrier spacing (SCS); para. 70), control channel configuration related information (separate DCI format for each TTI, TTI configured for PDCCH; para. 67), resource indication related information (TTI required for assigned resource; para. 63-68), and a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) table corresponding to the DCI (); the DCI format related information is a DCI format (separate DCI format for each TTI; para. 67, examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference); or the identifier related information comprises a radio network temporary identity (RNTI) corresponding to the DCI and/or scrambling information corresponding to the DCI; or the resource indication related information comprises indication information in the DCI (separate DCI format for each TTI, TTI timing indication includes index; para. [67, 70]), wherein the indication information is used to indicate a time domain resource and/or a frequency domain resource for data or control information transmission (index information for slot / mini-slot; para. 70); or the indication information is used to indicate a pilot mapping type for data or control information transmission.

	Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1, including terminal (terminal / UE 700; para. 37-39 and Fig. 8: Park) processor (controller 820; para. [160, 163]: Park), memory, program (memory 1002, software; para. 187-189 and Fig. 11: Yoshioka).
	Regarding claim 14:  the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.	Regarding claim 15:  the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4.
	Regarding claim 19:  the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 12.
	Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1, including non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, program executed by processor (processor 1001, memory 1002, software; para. 187-189 and Fig. 11: Yoshioka).
	Regarding claim 21:  the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.	Regarding claim 22:  the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4.	Regarding claim 23:  the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.

	Takeda et al. (US 2022/0116156 A1) discloses a user terminal and radio communication method.
	Aiba et al. (US 2019/0150183 A1) discloses user equipments, base stations and methods.
	Ying et al. (US 2019/0394759 A1) discloses user equipments, base stations and methods for time-domain resource allocation.
	Wang et al. (US 2020/0295882 A1) discloses a uplink transmission method and corresponding equipment.
	Nogami et al. (US 2019/0053318 A1) discloses user equipments, base stations and methods.

Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE L PEREZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7348. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 am - 3 pm.
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.



/JOSE L PEREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2474          

/MICHAEL THIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474