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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12-03-2025 has been entered and considered.
Claims 1-16, and 22-35 are pending in the current application.
Claims 1-16 and 22-35 remain rejected as discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 10, 15, 22, 29, 31 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al (US 2018/0331870) in view of Fechtel (US 2014/0355626) and further in view of Bayehsteh et al (US 2022/0045796). Hereinafter referred to as Sun, Fechtel and Bayehsteh.
Regarding claims 1, 10, 22 and 31. Sun discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a receiving device, comprising: a memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory, configured to: receive, from a first wireless communication device on a first communication channel, a first communication that is configured with at least one guard interval (GI) sequence of a first GI type (see at least abstract and paragraphs [0005]-[0006] and [0014]); and receive, from the first wireless communication device or a second wireless communication device on the first communication channel or a second communication channel, a second communication that is configured with at least one GI sequence of a second GI type (see at least abstract and paragraphs [0005]-[0006] and [0014]).
Sun discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception that the first GI type is selected for a communication based at least in part on an availability of processing at the receiving device, a latency associated with the communication or whether a channel for the communication is a control channel and using different GI types where the first and second GIs types are different. However, Fechtel, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the first GI type is selected for a communication based at least in part on an availability of processing at the receiving device, or whether a channel for the communication is a control channel (see at least paragraphs [0023] [0028] and [0047]) and using different GI types where the first and second GIs types are different (see at least figure 2 and paragraphs [0068]: the GI is tunes meaning adjusted dynamically). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Fechtel, as indicated, into the communication method of Sun for the purpose of increasing transmission efficiency and throughput.
Sun in view of Fechtel discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of GI is based on whether the communication is low latency communication. However, Bayehsteh, from the same field of endeavor, teaches GI is based on whether the communication is low latency communication (see at least paragraphs [0003] and [0045]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Bayehsteh, as indicated, into the communication method of Sun in view of Fechtel for the purpose of improving communication and reduce latency.
Regarding claims 8, 15, 29, and 34. Sun in view of Fechtel and further in view of Bayehsteh discloses an apparatus wherein the second GI type comprises a non-zero GI type (see at least paragraphs [0014] and [0131]) (Davydov: see at least paragraph [0032]).
Claims 2-7, 9, 11-14, 16, 23-28, 30, 32-33, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Fechtel in view of Bayehsteh and further in view of Bhattad et al (US 2019/0132829). Hereinafter referred to as Bhattad.
Regarding claims 2, and 23. Sun in view of Fechtel in view of Bayehsteh discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of explicitly transmitting a first GI configuration that indicates the at least one GI sequence of the first GI type ([0038], [0050]-[0051], [0086] and [0090]). However, Bhattad, from the same field of endeavor, explicitly teaches transmitting a first GI configuration that indicates the at least one GI sequence of the first GI type (see at least paragraphs [0009]-[0010]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Bhattad into the communication method of Sun in view of Fechtel in view of Bayehsteh for the purpose of managing resources, overhead and throughput.
Regarding claims 3, 11, 24, and 32. Sun in view of Fechtel in view of Bayehsteh in view of Bhattad discloses an apparatus wherein the one or more processors are further configured to transmit, to the second wireless communication device, a second GI configuration that indicates the at least one GI sequence of the second GI type (see at least paragraphs [0038], [0050]-[0051], [0086] and [0090]). (Bhattad: see at least paragraphs [0009]-[0010]).
Regarding claims 4 and 25. Sun in view of Fechtel in view of Bayehsteh in view of Bhattad discloses an apparatus wherein the one or more processors are further configured to transmit, to the first wireless communication device, a second GI configuration that indicates the at least one GI sequence of the second GI type (see at least paragraphs [0038], [0050]-[0051], [0086] and [0090]) (Bhattad: see at least paragraphs [0009]-[0010]).
Regarding claims 5, 12, 26 and 33, Sun in view of Fechtel in view of Bayehsteh discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception that the first GI type comprises a zero GI type. However, Bhattad, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the first GI type comprises a zero GI type (see at least paragraph [0085]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Bhattad, as indicated, into the communication method of Sun in view of Fechtel in view of Bayehsteh for the purpose of managing communication delay (see at least [0015] and [0118]).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 27. Sun in view of Fechtel in view of Bayehsteh in view of Bhattad disclose an apparatus wherein the first communication channel comprises a physical downlink control channel (Bhattad: see at least paragraphs [0009]-[0010]).
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 28. Sun in view of Fechtel in view of Bayehsteh in view of Bhattad disclose an apparatus wherein the first communication comprises an ultra-reliable low latency communication (Bhattad: see at least [0015] and [0118]).
Regarding claims 9, 16, 30 and 35. Sun in view of Fechtel in view of Bayehsteh discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of determining that a symbol level processing criterion, associated with processing resources available for the first communication, satisfies a processing threshold, wherein the first communication is associated with the first GI type based at least in part on the determination. However, Bhattad, from the same field of endeavor, teaches determining that a symbol level processing criterion, associated with processing resources available for the first communication, satisfies a processing threshold, wherein the first communication is associated with the first GI type based at least in part on the determination (see at least paragraphs [0009]-[0010]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Bhattad into the communication method of Sun in view of Fechtel in view of Bayehsteh for the purpose of managing resources, overhead and throughput.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-16, and 22-35 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO_892.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is 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.
When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicants must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37C.F.R 1.111(c). In addition, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and pages numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist examiner in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL whose telephone number is (571)270-1416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-4PM 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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached on 571-272-3795. 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.
/MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476