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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ arguments filed on 6 November 2024 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 16, 20-23, 25-28 and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over InterDigital (3GPP RAN WG2 Meeting #106, R2-1906404, 13th -17th May, 2019) in view of Alfarhan et al (US Pub. 2022/0210823).
Regarding claim 1, InterDigital discloses a method comprising:
receiving, at a first device, information indicating a plurality of configured grant resources and a plurality of hybrid automatic repeat request, HARQ, processes, the plurality of HARQ processes forming a common pool of HARQ processes which is shared by the plurality of configured grant resources, wherein the plurality of configured grant resources are configured in one bandwidth part (page 2, lines 3-9, within a single active wideband BWP (bandwidth part), multiple active CGs (configured grant) may be configured on different subbands within the BWP, and independent LBTs for different subbands may therefore have different outcomes, which may impact the selection between multiple configured grants; page 2, Proposal 1, from a RAN2 perspective, multiple active configured grant configurations for a given BWP of a serving cell is also supported in NR-U);
determining, by the terminal device, from the plurality of HARQ processes, available HARQ processes for transmission and/or retransmission (page 1, lines 6-7, HARQ process ID can be selected by the UE from an RRC configured set of HARQ IDs, page 2, Proposal 3, selecting a HARQ PID for an initial transmission on a CG from the HARQ PID pool configured for configured grant transmission) based at least on a timer of the respective HARQ process (page 2, Proposal 1, RAN2 agreed to introduce a new timer to control retransmissions on configured grants, which is referred to as “CG retransmission timer’ herein, in addition to the legacy R15 ConfiguredGrantTimer. It is vital to clarify that these two timers are maintained by the UE per HARQ process ID, as in R15, especially since they control re-transmissions and storing the TB in the HARQ process ID buffer; page 2, Proposal 2, MAC maintains a single CG retransmission timer per applicable HARQ Process ID; Proposal 3, upon reception of a dynamic grant with a HARQ PID used for a pending CG re-transmission, the UE restarts the CG timer and stops the CG retransmission timer. It is noted that it is implicitly disclosed that the mentioned timers are taken into consideration to identify possible available HARQ PIDs.).
selecting, by the terminal device, a HARQ process from the available HARQ processes (page 1, lines 6-7, HARQ process ID can be selected by the UE from an RRC configured set of HARQ IDs; page 2, Proposal 3, selecting a HARQ PID for an initial transmission on a CG from the HARQ PID pool configured for configured grant transmissions) (page 2, Proposal 1, RAN2 agreed to introduce a new timer to control retransmissions on configured grants, which is referred to as “CG retransmission timer” herein, in addition to the legacy R15 ConfiguredGrantTimer. It is vital to clarify that these two timers are maintained by the UE per HARQ process ID, as in R15, especially since they control re-transmissions and storing the TB in the HARQ process ID buffer.; page 2, Proposal 2, MAC maintains a single CG retransmission timer per applicable HARQ Process ID.; page 2, Proposal 3, upon reception of a dynamic grant with a HARQ PID used for a pending CG re-transmission, the UE restarts the CG timer and stops the CG retransmission timer. Therefore, when selecting a HARQ PID for an initial transmission on a CG from the HARQ PID pool configured for configured grant transmissions); and
transmitting, by the terminal device, data on one of the plurality of configured grant resources using the selected HARQ process (page 1, HARQ process ID can be selected by the UE from an RRC configured set of HARQ IDs and conveyed in the UCI; page 2, Proposal 3, selecting a HARQ PID for an initial transmission on a CG from the HARQ PID pool configured for configured grant transmissions).
InterDigital discloses all of the subject matter as recited above. However, assuming arguendo InterDigital does not specifically disclose determining, by the terminal device, from the plurality of HARQ processes, available HARQ processes for transmission and/or retransmission based at least on a timer of the respective HARQ process, Alfarhan from an analogous art discloses these limitations (para. 91, 101, update and maintain the CG timer for the applicable HARQ PID; para. 110, 115, selecting a HARQ PID for an initial transmission on a CG from the HARQ PID pool configured for AUL/CG (autonomous UL/configured grant) transmissions). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Alfarhan in the system of InterDigital in order to improve channel access in an unlicensed frequency bands (Alfarhan, ppara. 3).
Regarding claims 2-4 and 7, InterDigital further discloses:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the selecting the HARQ process from the plurality of HARQ processes comprises:
extracting from the information criteria for selection of the HARQ processes (id, HARQ process ID can be selected … and conveyed in the UCI); and
selecting the HARQ process from the plurality of HARQ processes based on the criteria (id).
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the selecting the HARQ process from the plurality of HARQ processes comprises:
determining, from the plurality of HARQ processes, a set of available HARQ processes (id);
determining a priority of the data (sec. 3, the UE fills the grant with all high priority data before filling the TB with data of lower priority ); and
selecting the HARQ process from the set of available HARQ processes based on the priority of the data (sec. 3).
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the selecting the HARQ process from the plurality of HARQ processes comprises:
determining a first set of HARQ processes from the plurality of HARQ processes based on the information, the first set of HARQ processes is used for data with priorities higher than a threshold priority (sec. 3, higher priority data, lower priority data);
determining a priority of the data; and in response to the priority exceeding the threshold priority, selecting the HARQ process from the first set of HARQ processes (sec. 3).
7. The method of claim 1, wherein a priority of the data is determined based on at least one of:
a priority of a logical channel/logical channel group to which the data belongs,
a buffered time of the data, or
a priority of a traffic to which medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) contained in the data relates (sec. 3, priority for transmission to ensure fairness to other systems contending for channel acquisition).
Regarding claim 16, InterDigital discloses a first device comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory including computer program codes; the at least one memory and the computer program codes are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the first device to essentially perform the method of claim 1, and is thus similarly rejected.
Claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium, corresponding to the method of claim 1, and is thus similarly rejected.
Claims 21-23 and 25 recite substantially identical subject matter as recited in claims 2-4 and 7, and are thus similarly rejected.
Claims 26-28 and 30 recite substantially identical subject matter as recited in claims 2-4 and 7, and are thus similarly rejected.
Regarding claims 31 and 32, the combination of InterDigital and Alfarhan further discloses:
wherein the data is a retransmitted data (InterDigital; sec. 1, retransmission of a TB),
wherein the one of the plurality of configured grant resources is different from a configured grant resource of an initial data transmission (InterDigital, sec. 6, both retransmission via same configured grant resource and retransmission via resource scheduled by UL grant are supported; Alfarhan, para. 120, 190), and
wherein the configured grant resource and the one of the plurality of configured grant resources have the same transmission block size (InterDigital, sec. 1, auto retransmission on configured grant for the case of the TB previous being transmitted; Alfarhan, para. 120. 190).
Claims 5, 24, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over InterDigital in view of Alfarhan et al, and further in view of Balachandran et al (US Pub. 2010/0218065).
Regarding claim 5, InterDigital further discloses wherein the selecting the HARQ process from the plurality of HARQ processes comprises:
determining a second set of HARQ processes from the plurality of HARQ processes based on the information (sec. 3) …;
determining a priority of the data (sec. 3) ….
InterDigital does not specifically disclose:
data with priorities lower than a threshold priority being only allowed to use the second set of HARQ processes;
… in response to the priority being below the threshold priority, selecting the HARQ process from the second set of HARQ processes.
However, Balachandran from an analogous art discloses selecting a high priority HARQ process among the set of HARQ processes among criteria such as bandwidth utilization, delay, etc. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Balachandran in the system of InterDigital in order to achieve more efficient resource utilization (Balachandra, para. 5).
Claims 24 and 29 recite substantially identical subject matter as recited in claims 5, and are thus similarly rejected.
Conclusion
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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAT T PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 6 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 http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Asad Nawaz can be reached on (571) 272-3988. 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.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights