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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued (a) “Further, the first information set is required to be sent in a time- frequency resource. Support for these amendments can be found, for example, in FIG. 5 and paragraph [0242]. Step S501 of FIG. 5 shows pieces of downlink data being sent to the terminal device. Paragraph [0242] illustrates a set comprising 5 bits "the first information set includes information of five bits, which are 01101" and step S504 shows the set being sent in a single transmission. Paragraph [0242] further explains, "a time-frequency resource used for sending the joint code is determined by the terminal device based on the first information set and the second information." This also illustrates that the set is sent by a time-frequency resource used to carry the first information set.”.
Applicant’s arguments are confusing because applicant is arguing sending the joint code which includes both first information set and second information set. It is noted that claim (1) is only sending the first information set by a time- frequency resource. The last 3 lines of [0042] read --- Due to joint coding, the terminal device does not determine a time-frequency resource used for sending the first information. In this case, complexity of implementing, by the terminal device, the communication method provided in embodiments of this application can be reduced. ---
Therefore, it is a question as to how the second information is sent to the network device.
Applicant’s argument (b) “There is also no teaching that the ACKs and NACKs are collectively sent in a time-frequency resource in Qualcomm, rather, the implication is that they are transmitted individually and sequentially.”
Response to argument (b), argument is moot because claim (1) does not recite ---collectively sent in a time-frequency resource---.
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.
Claims 1-6, 7-9, 11-15 and 17-21 are 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, 7 and 13, “a time-frequency resource” is not clearly define. It is a question as to what is or how is “a time-frequency resource” obtained.
Further, it is a question as to how the “second information” is being sent to the network device. Is the “second information” sent with the same “time frequency resource” as “the first information”?
Claims 3 and 7 are indefinite because claim 1, 7, and 17, respectively, established that “the second information is obtained based on downlink data corresponding to N pieces of the information in the first information set. Thus, given the limitations of claim 3, “wherein the second information is obtained based on downlink data corresponding to a Kth piece of first information in the first information set, wherein K is a positive integer, the Kth piece of first information is one of the N pieces of first information, and K<M.”, it renders the claims confusing.
In claim 12, the claim appears to not further limit the base claim 7 because the second information is obtained by the terminal device based on downlink data corresponding to N pieces of first information in the first information set.
In claim 13, “the pieces of downlink data” has no clear antecedent basis.
In claim 21, has no clear antecedent basis. Should claim 21 depends on claim 14?
In claims 20 and 22, “the modulation and coding scheme” has no clear antecedent basis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9, 11-15 and 17-21 are allowable over the prior art.
The prior art fails to teach or would have rendered obvious a system such as claimed in claims 1, 7 and 17 wherein a processor “receive pieces of downlink data and attempt to parse each received piece of downlink data determine create a first information set, wherein the first information set comprises comprising M pieces of first information, M is a positive integer, each at least one of the M pieces of first information corresponds to at least one piece of the pieces of downlink data, and each piece of first information indicates whether the corresponding at least one piece of downlink data corresponding to the piece of first information is was successfully parsed”, in relationship with the other claimed elements.
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLENTON B BURGESS whose telephone number is (571)272-3949. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 am - 5:00 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)
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.
/GLENTON B BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2454