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 .
The Examiner thanks the Applicant for the well-prepared amendment. The Examiner appreciates the Applicant’s effort to carefully analyze the Office action, and make appropriate arguments and amendments.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-13 and 17 responded on November 12, 2025 are pending, claims 3-5 and 13 is amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6, filed November 11, 2025, with respect to objection of claims 4-5 and 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 4-5 and 13 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6, filed November 11, 2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 3-4 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 3-4 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pg. 7-8, filed November 11, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued Prakash Claim 1 does not exclude that UE cannot have processing time table.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 30, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner and an initialed and dated copy of the Applicant’s IDS form 1449 is attached to the instant Office Action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash et al. (US 2019/0253203 A1, hereinafter "Prakash") in view of Kim et al. (US 10,470,194 B2, hereinafter "Kim").
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a telecommunication method comprising:
feeding back by a terminal to an access point a processing time required for the terminal to perform N ≥1 detection and decoding iteration(s) on at least one data packet transmitted by the access point and carried by a same physical channel (Prakash, [0082, 84, 94] the base station 110 (i.e. AP) may monitor for ACK/NACK feedback, corresponding to the downlink data communication, using a timing indicated by the processing time; Ni value may represent a PDSCH processing or decoding time (e.g., which may include one or both of PDCCH processing or decoding time and PDSCH processing or decoding time; a base station 110 may transmit an initial transmission with a less complex modulation and coding scheme (MCS) (and therefore target a better error rate) as compared to a retransmission, thus requiring performance of fewer iterations of a decode cycle of a decoder of the UE 120 (i.e. N ≥1 detection and decoding iteration)).
Prakash does not explicitly disclose a minimum processing time required for the terminal to perform N ≥1 detection and decoding iteration(s).
Kim from the same field of endeavor discloses feeding back by a terminal to an access point a minimum processing time required for the terminal to perform N ≥1 detection and decoding iteration(s) (Kim, Col. 4 line 24-27; Col.15 line 27-32 the processor may report a capability of a maximum number of times of decoding the interference downlink control information of the terminal to the base station; in an iterative decoding interference cancellation receiver known to have highest performance, since a UE decodes an interference signal and regenerates an interference signal in order to cancel interference, all information for decoding the interference signal is necessary).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified PDSCH processing time disclosed by Prakash and minimize processing time disclosed by Kim with a motivation to make this modification in order to improve transmission capacity and power efficiency of a cellular system (Kim, Col. 2 line 13-15).
Regarding claim 2, Prakash does not explicitly disclose includes interference cancellation.
Kim from the same field of endeavor discloses wherein a detection and decoding iteration of the N ≥ 1 detection and decoding iteration(s) performed by the terminal includes interference cancellation (Kim, Col. 15 line 27-33 in an iterative decoding interference cancellation receiver known to have highest performance, since a UE decodes an interference signal and regenerates an interference signal in order to cancel interference, all information for decoding the interference signal is necessary).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified PDSCH processing time disclosed by Prakash and minimize processing time disclosed by Kim with a motivation to make this modification in order to improve transmission capacity and power efficiency of a cellular system (Kim, Col. 2 line 13-15).
Regarding claim 6, Prakash discloses wherein the method comprises determining a table of processing times by the terminal and the terminal feeds back the table to the access point (Prakash, [0100-0101] one or more of the tables of FIG. 8 may be stored by a UE 120; a table used to determine a processing time may indicate a set of processing times to be used when the downlink data communication is scheduled via preconfigured scheduling and when the downlink data communication is an initial transmission).
Regarding claim 7, Prakash discloses wherein for a data packet transmission comprising multicarrier symbols the processing time is quantified as a number of multicarrier symbols (Prakash, [0100-0101] PDSCH processing/decoding time N1 (symbol)).
Regarding claim 8, Prakash discloses comprising the terminal receiving the data packets by way of a PDSCH channel of a 5G access network (Prakash, [0004, 0100-0101] a BS may be referred to as a Node B, a gNB, an access point (AP), a radio head, a transmit receive point (TRP), a New Radio (NR) BS, a 5G Node B, and/or the like; PDSCH processing/decoding time N1 (symbol)).
Regarding claim 11, Prakash discloses processing time and ACK/NACK but does not disclose the processing time for the N" iteration(s) is less than a time allotted to the terminal by the access point for feeding back an acknowledgement of receipt for the data packet (Prakash, [0085] the processing time may be shorter when the downlink data communication was scheduled via preconfigured scheduling, and may be longer when the downlink data communication was scheduled via a downlink grant received in the downlink control channel. In this way, the UE 120 may reduce latency).
Regarding claim 12, Prakash discloses a telecommunication terminal comprising:
an iterative receiver having N ≥ 1 iteration(s) with soft detection and soft decoding of data packets transmitted by an access point (Prakash, [0082-84] requiring performance of fewer iterations of a decode cycle of a decoder of the UE 120 may determine a processing time for the downlink data communication. In some aspects, the processing time may correspond to an Ni value in a 3GPP standard);
a receiver configured to receive a temporal indicator relating to a time allotted to the
terminal by the access point for feeding back an acknowledgement of receipt after at least one data packet has been decoded by the iterative receiver (Prakash, [0083-84] the base station 110 (i.e. AP) may transmit, and the UE 120 may receive, a downlink data communication, using a timing indicated by the processing time; Ni value may represent a PDSCH processing or decoding time (e.g., which may include one or both of PDCCH processing or decoding time and PDSCH processing or decoding time); and
a transmitter configured to:
feed back to the access point a processing time required for the terminal
to perform N ≥ 1 detection and decoding iteration(s) on at least one data packet
transmitted by the access point (Prakash, [0094] the base station 110 (i.e. AP) may monitor for ACK/NACK feedback, corresponding to the downlink data communication, using a timing indicated by the processing time); and
transmit an acknowledgement of receipt after at least one data packet has been
decoded by the iterative receiver (Prakash, [0115] the UE may transmit (e.g., using controller/processor 280, transmit processor 264, TX MIMO processor 266, MOD 254, antenna 252, and/or the like) ACK/NACK feedback, corresponding to the downlink data communication)(Kim, Col. 13 line 4-8 HARQ ACK/NACK: This is a response signal to a downlink data packet on a PDSCH and indicates whether the downlink data packet has been successfully received).
Prakash does not explicitly disclose a minimum processing time required for the terminal to perform N ≥1 detection and decoding iteration(s).
Kim from the same field of endeavor discloses feeding back by a terminal to an access point a minimum processing time required for the terminal to perform N ≥1 detection and decoding iteration(s) (Kim, Col. 4 line 24-27; Col.15 line 27-32 the processor may report a capability of a maximum number of times of decoding the interference downlink control information of the terminal to the base station; in an iterative decoding interference cancellation receiver known to have highest performance, since a UE decodes an interference signal and regenerates an interference signal in order to cancel interference, all information for decoding the interference signal is necessary).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified PDSCH processing time disclosed by Prakash and minimize processing time disclosed by Kim with a motivation to make this modification in order to improve transmission capacity and power efficiency of a cellular system (Kim, Col. 2 line 13-15).
Regarding claim 17, Prakash discloses a telecommunication method comprising:
receiving by an access point a feedback from a terminal relating to a processing time required for the terminal to perform N ≥ 1 detection and decoding iteration(s) on at least one data packet transmitted by the access point and carried by a same physical channel (Prakash, [0082, 94] the base station 110 (i.e. AP) may monitor for ACK/NACK feedback, corresponding to the downlink data communication, using a timing indicated by the processing time; a base station 110 may transmit an initial transmission with a less complex modulation and coding scheme (MCS) (and therefore target a better error rate) as compared to a retransmission, thus requiring performance of fewer iterations of a decode cycle of a decoder of the UE 120 (i.e. N ≥1 detection and decoding iteration)).
Prakash does not explicitly disclose a minimum processing time required for the terminal to perform N ≥1 detection and decoding iteration(s).
Kim from the same field of endeavor discloses a feedback from a terminal relating to a minimum processing time for the terminal to perform N ≥1 detection and decoding iteration(s) (Kim, Col. 4 line 24-27; Col.15 line 27-32 the processor may report a capability of a maximum number of times of decoding the interference downlink control information of the terminal to the base station; in an iterative decoding interference cancellation receiver known to have highest performance, since a UE decodes an interference signal and regenerates an interference signal in order to cancel interference, all information for decoding the interference signal is necessary).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified PDSCH processing time disclosed by Prakash and minimize processing time disclosed by Kim with a motivation to make this modification in order to improve transmission capacity and power efficiency of a cellular system (Kim, Col. 2 line 13-15).
Regarding claim 9, Prakash discloses wherein the method comprises the access point scheduling a repetition mechanism for transmitted data packets by taking into account the minimum processing time required by the terminal for performing N’ ≥ 1 iteration(s) (Prakash, [0103] to determine a processing time may indicate a set of processing times to be used when the downlink data communication is scheduled via a downlink grant and when the downlink data communication is a retransmission (i.e. repetition). As shown, in some aspects, the processing time associated with downlink grants and retransmissions may be longer than a processing time associated with preconfigured scheduling and initial transmissions, and may be longer than a processing time associated with downlink grants and initial transmissions).
Regarding claim 10, Prakash discloses wherein the method comprises the access point transmitting to the terminal a temporal indicator relating to a time allotted to the terminal by the access point for feeding back an acknowledgement of receipt after at least one data packet has been decoded by an iterative receiver of the terminal (Prakash, [0109] the UE 120 may use the long processing time because the transmission is a retransmission (and not an initial transmission) and/or because the retransmission was scheduled using a downlink grant in DCI of the PDCCH. In this case, the UE 120 may transmit the ACK/NACK feedback in a different slot than the slot in which the retransmission of the downlink data communication was received).
Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses an access point, comprising:
a receiver configured to receive a feedback from a terminal relating to a processing time required for the terminal to perform N ≥ 1 decoding iteration(s) on at least one data packet transmitted by the access point (Prakash, [0094] the base station 110 (i.e. AP) may monitor for ACK/NACK feedback, corresponding to the downlink data communication, using a timing indicated by the processing time); and
a transmitter configured to:
transmit data packets to the terminal (Prakash, [0083] the base station 110 (i.e. AP) may transmit, and the UE 120 may receive, a downlink data communication); and transmit a temporal indicator relating to a time allotted to the terminal by the access
point for feeding back an acknowledgement of receipt after at least one data packet has
been decoded by the iterative receiver (Prakash, [0093] the UE 120 may transmit, and the base station 110 may receive, acknowledgement or negative acknowledgement (ACK/NACK) feedback, corresponding to the downlink data communication, using a timing indicated by the processing time).
Prakash does not explicitly disclose a minimum processing time required for the terminal to perform N ≥1 detection and decoding iteration(s).
Kim from the same field of endeavor discloses feeding back by a terminal to an access point a minimum processing time required for the terminal to perform N ≥1 detection and decoding iteration(s) (Kim, Col. 4 line 24-27; Col.15 line 27-32 the processor may report a capability of a maximum number of times of decoding the interference downlink control information of the terminal to the base station; in an iterative decoding interference cancellation receiver known to have highest performance, since a UE decodes an interference signal and regenerates an interference signal in order to cancel interference, all information for decoding the interference signal is necessary).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified PDSCH processing time disclosed by Prakash and minimize processing time disclosed by Kim with a motivation to make this modification in order to improve transmission capacity and power efficiency of a cellular system (Kim, Col. 2 line 13-15).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash et al. (US 2019/0253203 A1, hereinafter "Prakash") in view of Kim et al. (US 10,470,194 B2, hereinafter "Kim") as applied to claim above, and further in view of Suzuki et al.(US 2004/0042492 A1, hereinafter "Suzuki").
Regarding claim 3, Prakash in view of Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein minimum the processing time determined per iteration is the same for all iterations.
Suzuki from the same field of endeavor disclose wherein the processing time determined per iteration is the same for all iterations (Suzuki, [0025] Particularly for packet traffic in a mobile environment this might not be the best solution since a call set-up might be required quite regularly. Thus, the number of different UE capabilities needs to be as small as possible (i.e. same for all iteration)).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have to include the teachings of Suzuki’s system for processing time into Prakash’s PDSCH process time as modified by Kim with a motivation to make this modification in order to improve over synchronous feedback transmission schemes (Suzuki, [abstract]).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash et al. (US 2019/0253203 A1, hereinafter "Prakash") in view of Kim et al. (US 10,470,194 B2, hereinafter "Kim") as applied to claim above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0053789 A1, hereinafter "Lee").
Regarding claim 4, Prakash in view of Kim discloses wherein the terminal is capable of processing interference between users for an MU-MIMO transmission but does not explicitly disclose method comprises the terminal feeding back one additional processing time per iteration on the basis of a number of interfering users processed by the iterative decoding with interference cancellation, this additional time taking into account a structure of a multiuser receiver of SIC, PIC or hybrid type.
Lee from the same field of endeavor discloses the terminal feeding back one additional processing time per iteration on the basis of a number of interfering users processed by the iterative decoding with interference cancellation, this additional time taking into account a structure of a multiuser receiver of SIC, PIC or hybrid type (Lee, [0063] Fig. 6-7 The receiver of each NOMA system may demodulate the multi-user data using various MUD schemes. For example, the MUD schemes may include … successive interference cancellation (SIC), parallel interference cancellation (PIC), …. There may be a difference in demodulation complexity and processing time delay according to each demodulation scheme or the number of attempts of repeated demodulation).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have to include the teachings of Lee’s system for interference cancellation into Prakash’s PDSCH process time as modified by Kim with a motivation to make this modification in order to improve contention-based UL transmission and reception performance by adaptively changing a mapping scheme between codewords for UL data and DMRSs according to collision between DMRSs transmitted by an OMA scheme (Lee, [0017]).
Regarding claim 5, Prakash in view of Kim discloses wherein the method comprises using a table of processing times by terminal type but does not explicitly disclose the minimum processing time is fed back by the terminal by indicating its SIC, PIC or hybrid type.
Lee from the same field of endeavor discloses wherein the method comprises using a table of processing times by terminal type and the minimum processing time is fed back by the terminal by indicating its SIC, PIC or hybrid type (Lee, [0063] Fig. 6-7 The receiver of each NOMA system may demodulate the multi-user data using various MUD schemes. For example, the MUD schemes may include …successive interference cancellation (SIC), parallel interference cancellation (PIC), …. There may be a difference in demodulation complexity and processing time delay according to each demodulation scheme or the number of attempts of repeated demodulation).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have to include the teachings of Lee’s system for interference cancellation into Prakash’s PDSCH process time as modified by Kim with a motivation to make this modification in order to improve contention-based UL transmission and reception performance by adaptively changing a mapping scheme between codewords for UL data and DMRSs according to collision between DMRSs transmitted by an OMA scheme (Lee, [0017]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LUNA WEISSBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-3315. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:30pm.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571)270-1215. 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.
/LUNA WEISSBERGER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2415