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 .
This Office Action is in response to communications filed on 5/11/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 16-18, 20 & 21 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
Claims 4, 14, 15 & 19 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 7, 10, 11 & 18 have been amended.
Objections to claims 1-3, 7, 10, 11 & 18 have been withdrawn based on amendments to these claims.
Rejections to claims 1, 10 & 11 under 35 USC 112(b) have been introduced.
Rejections to claims 1, 2, 6-8, 10, 11, 17, 18 & 21 under 35 USC 102 have been maintained.
Rejections to claims 3, 5, 12, 13, 16 & 20 under 35 USC 103 have been maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 16-18, 20 & 21 are patentable based on amendments to claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 10, 11 & 18. Examiner respectfully disagrees noting that a claimed invention may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 when the invention is anticipated (or is “not novel”) over a disclosure that is available as prior art that teaches every element required by the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation (see §MPEP 2131) and per 35 U.S.C. 103, a patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained 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 (see §MPEP 2141).
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Jung et al. (US 20190364563)(herein after “Jung”) fails to disclose a puncturing trigger condition required by the amended claim 1 limitation “wherein the target data being punctured comprises transmitted low-priority target data being punctured in response to high-priority data being to be transmitted” because Jung discloses a “pre-indication” puncturing mechanism rather than dynamic interruption “in response to data being transmitted” where the receive end cannot know in advance which portion of the data will be punctured. Examiner respectfully disagrees noting that the amended claim language recites “wherein the target data being punctured comprises transmitted low-priority target data being punctured in response to high-priority data being to be transmitted” which is unclear and thus indefinite because it is not possible to puncture data that has already been “transmitted”, and “data being to be transmitted” is not proper English. Examiner is interpreting this limitation as “wherein the target data being punctured comprises low-priority target data being transmitted being punctured in response to high-priority data being transmitted”. This interpretation is disclosed by Jung (see Fig 7, [0065] & [0084]-[0086]) which discloses that resources for eMBB service data (i.e. low-priority target data) can be dynamically punctured when resources for URLLC service data (i.e. high-priority data) are required to be transmitted. Examiner notes that the teachings of Jung do not require a “pre-indication” puncturing mechanism as [0082] of Jung discloses that the UE may be notified of the allocation of resources for URLLC transmission, that are sent on punctured eMBB resources, either before transmitting the URLCC service, in the same slot or in a next slot. In the case of notifying the UE in the next slot, the UE would not know in advance which portion of the data was punctured. Thus, Jung discloses the exact same directional and temporal sequence as in the current application invention and as required by amended claim 1.
Applicant argues that Jung does not disclose the feature of separately acquiring data from two independent types of resource occupation information as required by amended claim 1 that recites “acquiring the total quantity of REs occupied by the target data from received physical resource occupation information of the target data; and acquiring the quantity of REs occupied by the punctured portion of the target data from received resource occupation information of the punctured portion of the target data.". Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting first that the current application specification fails to disclose details on the acquiring of the total quantity of RE’s occupied by the punctured portion of the target data, other than reciting that this information is “from received resource occupation information of the punctured portion of the target data”. A broadest reasonable interpretation is that the quantity of REs occupied by the punctured portion of the target data is acquired by the UE through the same physical resource occupation information as the total quantity of REs occupied by the target data is acquired from (i.e. DCI2_1). Applicants Remarks filed 5/11/2026, page 11 further supports that the total quantity of REs for occupied by the punctured portion of the target data and total quantity of REs occupied by the target data may be obtained through a single resource occupation information by stating that “Both quantities of REs are derived from the resource occupation information delivered by the transmit end (DCI/DCI2_1)”, which seems to imply a single resource occupation information for delivering and receiving both quantities of REs. The current application specification only mentions that the DCI carrier the MCS of the target data and does not indicate that the DCI carries either quantity of REs, so the current application specification, in conjunction with applicant’s Remarks filed 5/11/2026 implies only a single resource occupation information carrying both REs through DCI2_1. However, even if it is interpreted that the quantity of REs occupied by the punctured portion of the target data is acquired by the UE through a different type of resource occupation information as the total quantity of REs occupied by the target data is acquired, Jung in [0082] discloses that the UE may be notified of the resources used for URLLC service, through punctured eMBB service resources, may be received in a next slot. In this scenario, the UE would receive and acquire the quantity of REs for eMBB service in a current slot (i.e. physical resource occupation information) and would receive and acquire the quantity of REs occupied by the punctured portion of the target data in a next slot (i.e. resource occupation information of the punctured portion of the target data). Thus, Jung discloses of two independent types of information for which the UE acquires the total quantity of REs occupied by the target data and for which the UE acquires the total quantity of RE’s occupied by the punctured portion of the target data.
Applicant argues that Jung fails to disclose “calculating the proportion of the target data being punctured” because Jung merely discloses that the UE may choose not to decode when determining a low possibility of decoding success based on "a large proportion of resources is punctured for providing a URLLC service.", which cannot be interpreted as dividing a quantity of REs occupied by the punctured portion by a total quantity of REs occupied by the target data. Examiner respectfully disagrees noting that a “portion” may be interpreted as a ratio, and thus a proportion of resources punctured may be interpreted as dividing a quantity of REs occupied by the punctured portion of the target data by a quantity of REs occupied by the target data. While applicant argues that a “large portion” could be determined by different methods such as (a) comparing an absolute RE quantity to a threshold, (b) statistical quantities such as a number of slots or symbols occupied by puncturing, (c) determining whether certain critical symbol positions are occupied, or (d) determining whether the puncturing affects reference signal positions, none of these methods involve a ratio (i.e. a portion or proportion). Examiner maintains that a broadest reasonable assumption of “a large proportion of resources punctured” may be interpreted as dividing a quantity of REs occupied by the punctured portion of the target data by a quantity of REs occupied by the target data.
Applicant argues that examiner’s piecemeal citation of different paragraphs of Jung that are unrelated and constitute hindsight reconstruction. Examiner respectfully disagrees noting that per MPEP 2131 “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001). See also MPEP § 2131.02. The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required.”. Examiner maintains that [0036], [0078], [0083]-[0085] and [0124] are most definitely related and examiner has provided, through a single reference, mappings of prior art disclosed by Jung to every element set forth in claim 1 in the manner arranged by claim 1.
Applicant argues that claim 1 provides a three step calculation procedure for quantifiability (a precise percentage obtained by dividing quantities of REs), implementability (both quantities of REs are derived from the resource occupation information delivered by the transmit end (DCI/DCI2_1)) and Synergy with Subsequent decision solution (the proportion of the target data being punctured, as one of the inputs, can together with other determination factors such as MCS and signal strength constitute the inputs for the decoding decision), while Jung only provides vague indications of the above procedures. Examiner respectfully disagrees noting that Jung provides details of an equivalent 3-step procedure through: Fig 9 & [0124] disclose identification of information indicating a large portion of eMBB resources are punctured (quantifiability), Fig 7, [0036] & [0083]-[0085] disclose acquiring a total quality of REs occupied by target data and Fig 7, [0078] & [0083]-[0086] acquiring a quantity of REs occupied by a punctured portion of the target data (implementability) and Fig 9 & [0124] disclose using the information that a high portion of eMBB resources are punctured to indicate a high possibility of failure to decode CBs for making a decoding decision (Synergy).
Based on the above discussion, examiner maintains rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102.
Regarding claims 10 & 11, applicant submits that these claims are patentable based on similar amendments and arguments as made for claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees and, for the same reasons as discussed above for claim 1, maintains rejections of claims 10 & 11 under 35 USC 102.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 5-8, 12, 13, 16-18, 20 & 21, applicant submits that these claims are patentable based on amendments and arguments as made for claims 1, 10 & 11 and due to their dependency on claims 1 10 or 11. Examiner respectfully disagrees and, for the same reasons as discussed above for claim 1, maintains rejections of claims 1, 2, 6-8, 17, 18 & 21 under 35 USC 102 and rejections of claims 3, 5, 12, 13 16 & 20 under 35 USC 103.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 202110859608.X, filed on 7/28/2021.
Claim Interpretation
Several of the claims in the present application recite Markush groups in the format of “at least one of A, B or C” (see MPEP §2117). For the purpose of this review, the examiner is interpreting these Markush claims as a single element selection from a closed group of elements consisting of alternatives A, B or C.
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.
Claims 1, 10 & 11 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 claims 1, 10 & 11, these claims recite the limitation “wherein the target data being punctured comprises transmitted low-priority target data being punctured in response to high-priority data being to be transmitted” which is unclear and thus indefinite because it is not possible to puncture data that has already been “transmitted”, and “data being to be transmitted” is not proper English. For the purpose of this review, examiner is interpreting this limitation in these claims as “wherein the target data being punctured comprises low-priority target data being transmitted being punctured in response to high-priority data being transmitted”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 2, 6-8, 10, 11, 17, 18 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung et al. (US 20190364563)(herein after “Jung”).
Regarding claims 1, 10 & 11, Jung discloses
a data processing method ([0001] discloses a method for transmitting and receiving information to provide a plurality of services.); or
an electronic device (Fig 14 & [0178] discloses a UE), comprising:
at least one processor (Fig 14, [0179] & [0182] disclose the UE may include a controller 1430 that may include at least one processor); and
a memory communicably connected to the at least one processor, wherein: the memory stores an instruction executable by the at least one processor which, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to carry out a data processing method ([0031] disclose memory storing computer program instructions that can be executed via a processor of the computer to perform functions specified in flowchart blocks discloses in the invention (e.g. the processor in controller 1430 of Fig 14 may execute instructions stored in a memory that cause the processor to perform methods as disclosed by flowcharts such as in fig 9).); or
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to carry out a data processing method ([0033] discloses a storage medium, that may store “units” such as an FPGA or ASIC (i.e. a non-transitory computer -readable storage medium) that include program code and can reproduce CPUs 9i.e. processors) that may execute the program code (e.g. to carry out flowchart blocks such as in fig 9 as discussed in the previous paragraph above).);
wherein the method is, or wherein the memory storing instructions executable by the at least one processor or the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, which when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to carry out a data processing method, comprising;
acquiring, in response to detecting that received target data is punctured, feature information representing a decoding difficulty of the target data (Fig 9 & (0120]-[0122] disclose a UE, receiving data about an eMBB service (i.e. target data) and identification information (i.e. feature information) about resource allocation for a URLLC service. Fig 7 & [0085]-[0087] disclose that the identification information about resource allocation for a URLLC may be pre-indicated (referenced by number 750 in fig 7) by downlink control channel 712 and may indicate puncturing applies to a resource, such as allocating resource region 714 within symbols 1-4 of slot n through puncturing the eMBB service in resource region 714. Fig 7 & [0085]-[0087] and Fig 9 & [0124] disclose that the UE, in response to receiving the identification information with pre-indication 750 and detecting that eMBB data is punctured in resource region 714, acquires at least one piece of information indicating a high possibility of failure in decoding CBs within a buffered TB (i.e. acquires a decoding difficulty of the target data).),
wherein the target data being punctured comprises transmitted low-priority target data being punctured in response to high-priority data being to be transmitted (Fig 7 , [0065] & [0084]-[0086] disclose that resources for eMBB service data (i.e. low-priority target data) can be dynamically punctured when resources for URLLC service data (i.e. high-priority data) are required to be transmitted.);
determining according to the feature information representing the decoding difficulty whether to decode the target data (Fig 9 & [0124] discloses the UE may decode CBs in the buffered TB, or determine to not perform decoding based on the at least one piece of information indicating a high possibility of failure to decode CBs in the buffered TB.); and
decoding the target data and sending information indicating whether the decoding is successful to a transmit end of the target data, in response to determining to decode the target data (Fig 8 & [0107] and Fig 9 & [0124] & [0126] disclose that the UE may determine to decode the CBs (i.e. the target data) in the buffered TB and may transmit a HARQ ACK/NACK to a base station.).
wherein the feature information representing the decoding difficulty comprises a proportion of the target data being punctured (Fig 9 & [0124] discloses that the identification information may contain at least one piece of information indicating a high possibility of failure to decode CBs, and specifically the one piece of information may be that a large portion of eMBB resources (i.e. target data) are punctured for URLCC service.), and acquiring the proportion of the target data being punctured comprises:
acquiring a total quantity of time-frequency resource elements, REs, occupied by the target data from received physical resource occupation information of the target data (Fig 7 & [0083]-[0085] disclose a UE receiving downlink control channel information (i.e. identification information) transmitted by a base station indicating an eMBB service region 716 consisting of symbols 1-4 of slot n. Fig 1 & [0036] discloses that the eMBB service region 716 may be part of a physical resource block (PRB) spanning 12 subcarriers, and that a resource element (RE) consists of one symbol over one subcarrier. Thus disclosed is a UE being provided identification information (i.e. received physical resource occupation information) through downlink control channel information to determine (i.e. acquire) an eMBB service region 716 consisting of a total quantity of 4 symbols x 12 subcarriers = 48 REs.);
acquiring a quantity of REs occupied by a punctured portion of the target data from received resource occupation information of the punctured portion of the target data (Fig 7 & [0083]-[0085] disclose a UE receiving downlink control channel information (i.e. identification information) transmitted by a base station indicating a URLLC service region 714. Fig 7 & [0086] discloses that a region 714 for transmitting information for providing a URLLC service may be allocated in symbols 1 to 4 of slot n. [0078] discloses that the URLLC service region may include a portion of one symbol. A broadest reasonable interpretation of fig 7 is that the shown URLLC region 714 spans a portion comprising 4 of the 12 subcarriers over 2 symbols. Thus discloses is a UE being provided identification information (i.e. received physical resource occupation information) through downlink control channel information to determine (i.e. acquire) a URLLC service region 714 consisting of a quantity of 2 symbols x 4 subcarriers = 8 REs. [0082] discloses that the information related to resources used for URLLC service may be sent in a next slot, and thus the downlink control channel information indicating the eMBB service region 716 may be sent separately (i.e. in a current slot) from which the downlink control channel information indicating the RRLLC service region 714) is sent (i.e. in a next slot).); and
calculating the proportion of the target data being punctured according to the quantity of REs occupied by the punctured portion of the target data and the total quantity of REs occupied by the target data (Fig 9 & [0124] discloses a UE not performing decoding when a large proportion of resources is punctured for providing URLLC service. A broadest reasonable interpretation is that the UE calculates the proportion of resources being punctured for URLLC service to be based the quantity of REs occupied by the URLLC service region 714 (i.e. the punctured portion of the eMBB service region 716) being 8 REs, and the total quantity of REs occupied by the eMBB service region 716 being 48 REs, providing a proportion of 8/48 or 1/6.).
Regarding claim 2, Jung discloses wherein the feature information representing the decoding difficulty further comprises at least one of: a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) of the target data (Fig 3 & [0064] and [0040]-[0043] disclose that a DCI, as part of downlink control channel transmission, may contain MCS for data transmission in a TB.), a received signal strength of the target data (optional), or a received signal-to-noise ratio of the target data (optional).
Regarding claims 6, 17 & 21, Jung discloses wherein decoding the target data and sending information indicating whether the decoding is successful to a transmit end of the target data comprises:
decoding the target data, and in response to the decoding being unsuccessful, sending information indicating that the decoding is unsuccessful to the transmit end of the target data (Fig 8 & [0109] and Fig 9 & [0124] & [0126] disclose that the UE may determine to decode the CBs (i.e. the target data) in the buffered TB and in response to at least one CB of the buffered TB failing to decode, may transmit information to a base station indicating CBs that have failed to be decoded.); and
after decoding the target data, and in response to the decoding being unsuccessful, sending information indicating that the decoding is unsuccessful to the transmit end of the target data, the method further comprises: receiving, from the transmit end of the target data, check information obtained based on an adaptive retransmission algorithm, wherein the check information is sent by the transmit end of the target data after receiving the information indicating that the decoding is unsuccessful (Fig 8 & [0109] discloses that after receiving the transmission from the UE indicating which CBs have failed to decode, the base station may perform retransmission (i.e. retransmit check information based on an adaptive retransmission algorithm) which is received by the UE in step 810.); and
re-decoding the target data according to the check information and sending information indicating whether the re-decoding is successful to the transmit end of the target data (Fig 11 & [0150] disclose that the UE may perform decoding based on retransmitted data and transmit ACK/NACK according to the decoding result.).
Regarding claims 7 & 18, Jung discloses wherein detecting that received target data is punctured comprises: receiving resource occupation information of the punctured portion of the target data in a process of receiving the target data, wherein the resource occupation information of the punctured portion of the target data is generated by the transmit end of the target data before puncturing the target data, and sent to a receive end of the target data (Fig 7 and [0082] & [0085]-[0087] disclose that the identification information about resource allocation for a URLLC service (i.e. resource occupation information) may be pre-indicated (referenced by number 750 in fig 7) by downlink control channel 712 (i.e. generated before the URLLC region 714 punctures the eMBB region 716), as part of an eMBB transmission in slot n, and sent to the UE through DL control channel 712.).
Regarding claim 8, Jung discloses wherein after determining according to the feature information representing the decoding difficulty whether to decode the target data, the method further comprises: discarding the target data in response to determining not to decode the target data (Fig 9 & [0124] discloses that when a UE determines not perform decoding because decoding is likely to fail, the UE may discard the buffered TB or some CBs (i.e. the target data).).
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.
Claims 3, 5, 12, 13, 16 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 20190364563)(herein after “Jung”) in view of Kilinc et al. (US 20190379491)(herein after “Kilinc”).
Regarding claim 3, Jung discloses the data processing method of claim 2.
Jung discloses wherein the feature information representing the decoding difficulty comprises the proportion of the target data being punctured and the MCS of the target data (Fig 9 & [0124] discloses that the identification information may contain at least one piece of information indicating a high possibility of failure to decode CBs, and specifically the one piece of information may be that a large portion of eMBB resources (i.e. target data) are punctured for URLCC service.). Fig 3 & [0064] and [0040]-[0043] disclose that a DCI, as part of downlink control channel transmission, may contain MCS for data transmission in a TB.).
Jung fails to disclose wherein the feature information representing the decoding difficulty comprises the received signal strength of the target data.
However, Kilinc teaches wherein the feature information representing the decoding difficulty comprises the received signal strength of the target data ([0063] discloses that the probability that the receiver cannot decode punctured eMBB data may depend on a signal-to-noise ratio of the transmission. A signal-to-noise ratio represents a received signal strength relative to a received noise level.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the data processing method of claim 2, wherein the feature information representing the decoding difficulty comprises the proportion of the target data being punctured and the MCS of the target data, as disclosed by Jung, wherein the feature information representing the decoding difficulty comprises the received signal strength of the target data, as taught by Kilinc. The motivation to do so would have been to have a processing method wherein a UE receives identification information from a base station that indicates a probability of decoding code blocks (CBs) in a transport block (TB) comprising the proportion of eMBB data being punctured for URLLC data, MCS of the eMBB data and signal-to-noise ratio of the eMBB data so that the UE can use all three pieces of information to determine the probability of decoding CBs of the TB through a formula or look-up table, so that the UE can decide whether to attempt to decode the CBs of the TB or wait for the base station to send a retransmission of the punctured eMBB data before attempting to decode the CBs of the TB.
Regarding claims 5, 12, 16 & 20 Jung discloses the data processing method of claims 1 & 2, or the electronic device of claim 10, or the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 11.
Jung discloses wherein determining according to the feature information representing the decoding difficulty whether to decode the target data comprises:
acquiring a decoding decision corresponding to the feature information representing the decoding difficulty of the target data, wherein the decoding decision is decoding or not decoding (Fig 7 & [0085]-[0087] and Fig 9 & [0124] disclose that the UE, in response to receiving the identification information with pre-indication 750 and detecting that eMBB data is punctured in resource region 714, acquires at least one piece of information indicating a high possibility of failure in decoding CBs within a buffered TB. Fig 9 & [0124] disclose the UE may decode CBs in the buffered TB, or determine to not perform decoding (i.e. UE acquires a decoding decision wherein the coding decision is decoding or not decoding) based on the at least one piece of information indicating a high possibility of failure to decode CBs in the buffered TB.); and
determining to decode the target data in response to the decoding decision being decoding, or determining not to decode the target data in response to the decoding decision being not decoding (Fig 9 & [0124] disclose the UE may decode CBs in the buffered TB (i.e. UE determines to decode the target data in response to a decoding decision being decoding), or determine to not perform decoding (i.e. UE determines not to decode the target data in response to the decoding decision being not decoding) based on the at least one piece of information indicating a high possibility of failure to decode CBs in the buffered TB.).
Jung fails to disclose wherein the acquiring of the decoding decision corresponding to the feature information representing the decoding difficulty of the target data is according to a preset correspondence between the feature information representing the decoding difficulty and the decoding decision.
However, Kilinc teaches wherein the acquiring of the decoding decision corresponding to the feature information representing the decoding difficulty of the target data is according to a preset correspondence between the feature information representing the decoding difficulty and the decoding decision ([0063] discloses a UE may estimate the probability of decoding failure through a look up table indexed according to one or more of the decoding factors (i.e. a preset look up table mapping decoding factors, or feature information, to probability of decoding failure, or decoding difficulty).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the data processing method of claims 1, 2 & 4, or the device of claim 10, or the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 11, wherein determining according to the feature information representing the decoding difficulty whether to decode the target data comprises: acquiring a decoding decision corresponding to the feature information representing the decoding difficulty of the target data, wherein the decoding decision is decoding or not decoding; and determining to decode the target data in response to the decoding decision being decoding, or determining not to decode the target data in response to the decoding decision being not decoding, as disclosed by Jung, wherein the acquiring of the decoding decision corresponding to the feature information representing the decoding difficulty of the target data is according to a preset correspondence between the feature information representing the decoding difficulty and the decoding decision, as taught by Kilinc. The motivation to do so would have been to have a processing method, or an electronic device, or a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein a UE makes a decoding decision to decode or not to decode CBs of a TB based on received identification information from a base station that indicates a probability of decoding failure for the CBs in the TB, wherein the identification information may include a proportion of the target data being punctured based on a total quantity of REs occupied by an eMBB services and a quantity of REs occupied by a punctured portion for a URLLC service or a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) of the eMBB data, and using a preset look up table to map the identification information to a decoding decision so that all UEs in the network make consistent decoding decisions based on the preset look up table (e.g. that may be defined in a standards document) and the received identification information.
Regarding claim 13, Jung in view of Kilinc disclose the data processing method of claim 3.
Jung discloses wherein determining according to the feature information representing the decoding difficulty whether to decode the target data comprises:
acquiring a decoding decision corresponding to the feature information representing the decoding difficulty of the target data, wherein the decoding decision is decoding or not decoding (Fig 7 & [0085]-[0087] and Fig 9 & [0124] disclose that the UE, in response to receiving the identification information with pre-indication 750 and detecting that eMBB data is punctured in resource region 714, acquires at least one piece of information indicating a high possibility of failure in decoding CBs within a buffered TB. Fig 9 & [0124] disclose the UE may decode CBs in the buffered TB, or determine to not perform decoding (i.e. UE acquires a decoding decision wherein the coding decision is decoding or not decoding) based on the at least one piece of information indicating a high possibility of failure to decode CBs in the buffered TB.); and
determining to decode the target data in response to the decoding decision being decoding, or determining not to decode the target data in response to the decoding decision being not decoding (Fig 9 & [0124] disclose the UE may decode CBs in the buffered TB (i.e. UE determines to decode the target data in response to a decoding decision being decoding), or determine to not perform decoding (i.e. UE determines not to decode the target data in response to the decoding decision being not decoding) based on the at least one piece of information indicating a high possibility of failure to decode CBs in the buffered TB.).
Jung fails to disclose wherein the acquiring of the decoding decision corresponding to the feature information representing the decoding difficulty of the target data is according to a preset correspondence between the feature information representing the decoding difficulty and the decoding decision.
However, Kilinc teaches wherein the acquiring of the decoding decision corresponding to the feature information representing the decoding difficulty of the target data is according to a preset correspondence between the feature information representing the decoding difficulty and the decoding decision ([0063] discloses a UE may estimate the probability of decoding failure through a look up table indexed according to one or more of the decoding factors (i.e. a preset look up table mapping decoding factors, or feature information, to probability of decoding failure, or decoding difficulty).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the data processing method of claim 3 , wherein determining according to the feature information representing the decoding difficulty whether to decode the target data comprises: acquiring a decoding decision corresponding to the feature information representing the decoding difficulty of the target data, wherein the decoding decision is decoding or not decoding; and determining to decode the target data in response to the decoding decision being decoding, or determining not to decode the target data in response to the decoding decision being not decoding, as disclosed by Jung in view of Kilinc, wherein the acquiring of the decoding decision corresponding to the feature information representing the decoding difficulty of the target data is according to a preset correspondence between the feature information representing the decoding difficulty and the decoding decision, as taught by Kilinc. The motivation to do so would have been to have a processing method wherein a UE makes a decoding decision to decode or not to decode CBs of a TB based on received identification information from a base station that indicates a probability of decoding failure for the CBs in the TB, wherein the identification information may include a proportion of the target data being punctured and a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) of the eMBB data and a signal-to-noise ratio of a transmission of the eMBB data, and using a preset look up table to map the identification information to a decoding decision so that all UEs in the network make consistent decoding decisions based on the preset look up table (e.g. that may be defined in a standards document) and the received identification information.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jiang et al. (US 2018/0270023) discloses Techniques for Signaling Compressed HARQ or Retransmission Information Between a Base Station and a User Equipment.
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 JAMES P SEYMOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-7654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Nishant Divecha can be reached at 571-270-3125. 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.
/JAMES P SEYMOUR/ Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/PAO SINKANTARAKORN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights