25DETAILED 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
Applicant’s amendment, filed on 3/30/2026, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1-25 have been amended and Claims 1-25 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 03/30/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the prior art fails to teach the limitation “increasing a contention window value when a number of received ACKs does not exceed a success threshold and when a number of received NACKs plus a number of received DTXs exceeds a failure threshold”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 0160 of Noh are reproduced below for convenience:
[0160] Method A-3: If among the HARQ-ACK feedback values for the reference window, NACK or DTX is determined as at least Z % (0<Z<100), the CWS is increased, and if not, the CWS may be reset to a minimum value. As an example, Z may be 50 or 80. Herein, the NACK or the DTX of at least Z % means that either the NACK or the DTX is added, i.e., a sum of NACK, DTX and NACK/DTX, to become at least Z %. That is, NACK/DTX and DTX may be treated equally with NACK. Accordingly, if a ratio (hereinafter, referred to as Y %) of NACK or DTX in the HARQ-ACK feedback is equal to or more than a reference value, the CWS is increased, and when the ratio of NACK or DTX is less than the reference value, the CWS may be reset to the minimum value. The reference value may be 0<reference value<1, or 0%<reference value<100% according to a unit. Equally, if among the HARQ-ACK feedback values for the reference window, the ACK is determined as a value less than P % (X=100−Z), the CWS is increased, and if not, the CWS may be reset to a minimum value. As an example, P may be 20 or 50.
Noh discloses increasing the contention window value when the number of received ACKs does not exceed the success threshold and the number of received NACKs plus the number of received DCTXs does not exceed the failure threshold. In addition, Noh teaches that DTX may be treated equally with NACK. For example, if the percentage of ACK is less than 80%, equally, we can say that NACK+DTX is greater than 20% (1-80%).
For the reasons stated above, Examiner believes the prior art still disclose the claim limitation above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
4. Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites limitation “increasing a contention window value when a number of received ACKs does not exceed a success threshold and when a number of received NACKs plus a number of received DTXs exceeds a failure threshold; or increasing the contention window value when the number of received ACKs exceeds the success threshold and the number of received NACKs plus the number of received DTXs exceeds the failure threshold; or increasing the contention window value when the number of received ACKs does not exceed the success threshold and the number of received NACKs plus the number of received DTXs does not exceed the failure threshold”.
However, according to the original specification of the instant application fails to provide the support for the above claim limitation.
The related paragraph 00148 of the specification recites as the following:
[00148] The communications device increases the contention window value based on a current contention window value when a proportion (Num(ACK)/N) of first target reference data in the N pieces of first reference data does not exceed a first threshold or a proportion (Num(NACK)+Num(DTX)/N) of second target reference data in the N pieces of first reference
data exceeds a second threshold; or
the communications device adjusts the contention window value to a minimum contention window value when the proportion (Num(ACK)/N) of the first target reference data in the N pieces of first reference data exceeds the first threshold or the proportion (Num(NACK)+Num(DTX)/N) of the second target reference data in the N pieces of first reference data does not exceed the second threshold.
First, the specification discloses increasing CW when condition (i) OR condition (ii) is met – meaning either condition alone is sufficient. The claims required AND logic in each scenario -both conditions must be simultaneously evaluated. These are fundamentally different algorithms. A killed artisan reading [0148] would not have possession of a two-condition AND-based decision structure.
Second, the spec consistently uses proportions – Num(ACK)/N and Num(NACK)+Num(DTX))/N – compared to threshold. The claims compare raw counts (number of received ACKs) to a threshold. These are not legally equivalent for §112 purposes. The “mathematical equivalence” argument requires the skilled artisan to supply the conversion, which the specification never discloses. The applicant cannot rely on inherency for written description.
Third, Claim Scenario 2, increase CW when ACKs>success threshold AND NACKs + DTX > failure threshold. In this scenario, ACKs>success threshold, suggesting a relative successful transmission.
Claim Scenario 3 – increase CW when ACKs<=success threshold AND NACKs+DTXs<=failure threshold. Both scenarios have no basis.
In this scenario, NACKs+DTX are low, suggesting a relatively successful transmission. The specification never contemplates increasing the CW in these two situations. [0148] only increase CW when at least one i) ACK<= success threshold or NACKs + DTX > failure threshold. Scenario 2 and 3 has no express or inherently support.
Claim 9 and 18 are rejected for the same reason stated above.
Claims 2-8, 10-17 and 20-25 are dependent claims of claims 1, 9 and 18. Thus, are rejected for the same deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 9, 12, 17-18, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Noh et al (US 2017/0079013).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 18, Noh teaches a contention window maintenance method, comprising:
determining, by a communications device, a first reference time, where the communications device has sent N pieces of first reference data within the first reference time, and N is an integer greater than zero ([0133], “the DL transmission may be performed through a set of one or more consecutive subframes (DL transmission burst) after the LBT”, it’s noted that the set of one or more consecutive subframes correspond to the first reference time); and
increasing a contention window value when a number of received ACKs does not exceed a success threshold ([0145], “Equally, if among the HARQ-ACK feedback values for the reference window, the ACK is determined as a value less than P% (X=100-Z), the CWS is increased) and when a number of received NACKs plus a number of received DTXs exceeds a failure threshold ([0145], “if among the HARQ-ACK feedback values for the reference window, the NACK is determined at least Z % (0<Z<100), the CWS is increased; also see [0160], “NACK/DTX and DTX may be treated equally with NACK””, It’s noted that basically DTX is treated as NACK for the calculation purpose; further noted that the above two scenarios always occur at the same time, when NACK> Z% and ACK < P% wherein P% (X=100-Z)”; also see [0160], “the NACK or the DTX of the at least Z% means that either the NACK or the DTX is added, i.e., a sum of NACK, DTX and NACK/DTX, to become at least Z%”); or
increasing the contention window value when the number of received ACKs exceeds the success threshold and the number of received NACKs plus the number of received DTXs exceeds the failure threshold; or
increasing the contention window value when the number of received ACKs does not exceed the success threshold and the number of received NACKs plus the number of received DTXs does not exceed the failure threshold (the above two claim limitations lack written support and also are presented in alternative forms; Only one of the scenarios need to be met for prior art rejection purpose).
Regarding claim 4, 12 and 21, Noh further teaches that the communications apparatus adjusts the contention window value to the minimum contention window value when the proportion of the ACKs in the responses that are of the N pieces of first reference data and that are received by the communications apparatus is greater than 10% (Noh, [0160], “Equally, if among the HARQ-ACK feedback values for the reference window, the ACK is determined as a value less than P % (X=100−Z), the CWS is increased, and if not, the CWS may be reset to a minimum value”, it’s noted that P can be set to any number between 0 to 100 which include 10).
Regarding claim 17, Noh further teaches that the communications apparatus is a network device, a terminal device, a chip or a chip system (Noh, Fig. 18, communication devices).
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.
Claims 3, 5-8, 11, 13-16, 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh, in view of Wang, et al (US 2021/0014727).
Regarding claim 3, 11 and 20, Noh further teaches that the communications apparatus increases the contention window value when the proportion of the ACKs in the responses that are of the N pieces of first reference data and that are received by the communications apparatus
Noh doesn’t explicitly teach the first time window.
Wang teaches the first time window ([0073], “the access point may count a number of ACKs received in the reference time window, a number of NACKs received in the reference time window, and/or a total number of ACKs plus NACKs received in the reference time window”, “reference time window may be, and/or may start at, a starting subframe of a most recent transmission by the access point for which ACK/NACK information is expected to be received”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teaching of Wang in the system disclosed by Noh. Determining a reference time window is crucial for calculating percentage of ACKs and/or NACKs received because it provides a consistent period over which to measure and analyze network performance. This allows for accurate assessment of data transmission errors within a defined timeframe.
Regarding claim 5, 13, 22, Noh in view of Wang further teaches that the communications apparatus increases the contention window value when the proportion of ACKs in the responses that are of the N pieces of first reference data and that are received by the communications apparatus after the first time window is less than or equal to 10% (Noh, [0160], “Equally, if among the HARQ-ACK feedback values for the reference window, the ACK is determined as a value less than P % (X=100−Z), the CWS is increased, and if not, the CWS may be reset to a minimum value”; Wang, [0073], discloses first time window).
Regarding claim 6, 14, 23, Noh in view of Wang further teaches that the communications apparatus adjusts the contention window value to a minimum contention window value when the proportion of ACKs in the responses that are of the N pieces of first reference data and that are received by the communications apparatus after the first time window is greater than 10% (Noh, [0160], “Equally, if among the HARQ-ACK feedback values for the reference window, the ACK is determined as a value less than P % (X=100−Z), the CWS is increased, and if not, the CWS may be reset to a minimum value” , Wang, [0073], discloses first time window).
Regarding claim 7, 15, 24, Noh in view of Wang further teaches a start moment of the first time window follows the first reference time (Wang, [0073], “the access point may count a number of ACKs received in the reference time window, a number of NACKs received in the reference time window, and/or a total number of ACKs plus NACKs received in the reference time window”, “reference time window may be, and/or may start at, a starting subframe of a most recent transmission by the access point for which ACK/NACK information is expected to be received”, the reference time window correspond to the first time window).
Regarding claim 8, 16, 25, Noh in view of Wang further teaches that a size of the first time window is preset (Wang, [0072], size of a reference time window could be a set of reference subframes).
Claims 2, 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh, in view of Wang, et al (US 2021/0014727) and further in view of Li et al (US 2020/0100284).
Regarding claim 2, Noh teaches all of the limitations as applied to the parent claim, however, Samsung in view of Noh doesn’t explicitly teach the first time window.
Wang teaches the first time window ([0073], “the access point may count a number of ACKs received in the reference time window, a number of NACKs received in the reference time window, and/or a total number of ACKs plus NACKs received in the reference time window”, “reference time window may be, and/or may start at, a starting subframe of a most recent transmission by the access point for which ACK/NACK information is expected to be received”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teaching of Wang in the system disclosed by Samsung. Determining a reference time window is crucial for calculating percentage of ACKs and/or NACKs received because it provides a consistent period over which to measure and analyze network performance. This allows for accurate assessment of data transmission errors within a defined timeframe.
The aforementioned references don’t explicitly teach that the communications apparatus does not adjust the contention window value when the proportion of the ACKs in the responses that are of the N pieces of first reference data and that are received by the communications apparatus in the first time window is equal to 0 and the proportion of the NACKs in the responses that are of the N pieces of first reference data and that are received by the communications apparatus in the first time window is equal to 0. Li teaches the above limitations ([0321], “if the fraction of received TBs with DTX among the TBs in the set of HARQ-ACK feedback resources for current CW adjust decision exceeds a certain threshold η (0<=η<1) the CW size can be remained”, it’s noted that “when the proportion of the ACKs in the responses that are of the N pieces of first reference data and that are received by the communications apparatus in the first time window is equal to 0 and the proportion of the NACKs in the responses that are of the N pieces of first reference data and that are received by the communications apparatus in the first time window is equal to 0” correspond to the response only comprise DTX. When the responses only comprise DTX, the fraction of received TBs with DTX among the TBs in the set of HARQ-ACK feedback resources for current CW would be 1 which is greater than the threshold η, since (0<=η<1). Thus, the CW size would remain unchanged).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teaching of Li in the system disclosed by Samsung in view of Noh and Wang for the benefit of simplicity and predictability. If the CWS doesn’t change with predominantly DTX feedback, the system avoids the complexity of constantly recalculating and adapting the window size based on potentially noisy or inconsistent data. DTX feedback might not always reliably indicate a collision – could be due to interference, a receiver being out of range, or other factors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMING LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-3859. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. 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.
/SIMING LIU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights