DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This action is in response to application 18/407,672 filed 1/9/24.
Claim(s) 1-30 is/are presented for examination.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim(s) 29-30, limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim(s) 29-30, limitation “means for obtaining, determining and sending…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. How does the particular set of bit values used to determined transition pattern Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-30 is/are unclear to the examiner; what does it mean by stating “determine, based on a transition pattern associated with the particular set of bit values, whether to send the particular set of bit values during a single transmission period or during multiple transmission periods”? How does the system send the set of bit values during a single or during multiple transmission? Based on what kind of pattern to determined that? What actually being the cause? Please clarify
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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) 1-4, 6-7, 13-16, 18-19, 25-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lohr, U.S. Pub/Patent No. US 20100135229 A1.
As to claim 1, Lohr teaches a device comprising:
a transmitter configured to:
determine, based on a transition pattern associated with the particular set of bit values, whether to send the particular set of bit values during a single transmission period or during multiple transmission periods (Lohr, page 2, paragraph 42-44; page 10, paragraph 161; i.e., [0043] the total amount of occupied spectrum is, in essence, the same as that of localized single-carrier; [0161] if the scheduling information of the last resource request of a mobile terminal has indicated an amount of uplink data that could be transmitted by the mobile terminal (taking into account buffer status and bucket status) is larger than the amount of data granted for transmission within the validity period of the scheduling grant. Based on the scheduling information of the mobile terminal the scheduling base station is aware that the mobile terminal still has data to send, and may thus autonomously transmit a new scheduling grant to the mobile terminal, as indicated in FIG. 6. However, if the buffer status of a bearer ( e.g. due to the burstiness of the transported data) has changed significantly the mobile terminal may nevertheless send a resource request with new (up-to-date) scheduling information to the base station. It should be noted that the base station may be aware of the bucket status of guaranteed bit-rate bearers of the mobile terminals due to their more predictable behaviour); and
send the particular set of bit values based on the determination (Lohr, page 4, paragraph 75; i.e., [0075] to transmit a quantity of data (i.e. represents a given number of bits/bytes), is added to the bucket. When the UE is granted resources, it is allowed to transmit data up to the amount represented by the number of tokens in the bucket. When transmitting data the UE removes the number of tokens equivalent to the quantity of transmitted data).
But Lohr failed to teach the claim limitation wherein obtain a particular set of bit values to be sent via a set of wires of a communication link.
However, Yang teaches the limitation wherein obtain a particular set of bit values to be sent via a set of wires of a communication link (Yang, page 2, paragraph 12-13; page 12, paragraph 113; i.e., [0013] for performing rate matching on the first set of output bits to match the number of bits of the first set of output bits to the set of resources in the first transmission symbol period before receiving all the input bits associated with the single input vector at the encoder; [0113] Transceiver 1235 may communicate bi-directionally, via one or more antennas, wired, or wireless links as described above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lohr in view of Yang so that the system would be able to perform the rate matching of the resources. One would be motivated to do so to reduces overhead and provides higher coding gain (see Yang, page 1, paragraph 5).
As to claim 2, Lohr-Yang teaches the device as recited in claim 1. But Lohr failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the transmitter is configured to, based on determining that the transition pattern matches a cross-talk pattern, determine that the particular set of bit values are to be sent during the multiple transmission periods.
However, Yang teaches the limitation wherein the transmitter is configured to, based on determining that the transition pattern matches a cross-talk pattern, determine that the particular set of bit values are to be sent during the multiple transmission periods (Yang, page 15, paragraph 147; i.e., [0147] forward link transmissions while the uplink transmissions may also be called reverse link transmissions. Each communication link described herein-including wireless communications system 100 and configuration 200, where each carrier may be a signal made up of multiple sub-carriers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lohr in view of Yang so that the system would be able to perform the rate matching of the resources. One would be motivated to do so to reduces overhead and provides higher coding gain (see Yang, page 1, paragraph 5).
As to claim 3, Lohr-Yang teaches the device as recited in claim 2. But Lohr failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the cross-talk pattern includes two adjacent bits transitioning in opposite directions.
However, Yang teaches the limitation wherein the cross-talk pattern includes two adjacent bits transitioning in opposite directions (Yang, page 4, paragraph 137-138; i.e., [0138] the encoder, a first set of output bits of the plurality of sets of output bits associated with a first transmission symbol period of the plurality of transmission
symbol periods prior to receiving all input bits of the second set of input bits of the plurality of sets of input bits, the second set of input bits being received at the encoder
subsequent to the first set of input bits).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lohr in view of Yang so that the system would be able to perform the rate matching of the resources. One would be motivated to do so to reduces overhead and provides higher coding gain (see Yang, page 1, paragraph 5).
As to claim 4, Lohr-Yang teaches the device as recited in claim 1. But Lohr failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the transmitter is configured to, based on determining that the transition pattern matches an encoding pattern, determine that the particular set of bit values are to be sent during the multiple transmission periods.
However, Yang teaches the limitation the transmitter is configured to, based on determining that the transition pattern matches an encoding pattern, determine that the particular set of bit values are to be sent during the multiple transmission periods (Yang, page 4, paragraph 137-138; i.e., [0138] the encoder, a first set of output bits of the plurality of sets of output bits associated with a first transmission symbol period of the plurality of transmission symbol periods prior to receiving all input bits of the second set of input bits of the plurality of sets of input bits, the second set of input bits being received at the encoder subsequent to the first set of input bits).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lohr in view of Yang so that the system would be able to perform the rate matching of the resources. One would be motivated to do so to reduces overhead and provides higher coding gain (see Yang, page 1, paragraph 5).
As to claim 6, Lohr-Yang teaches the device as recited in claim 1, wherein the transmitter is configured to, based on determining that the transition pattern matches neither a cross-talk pattern nor an encoding pattern, determine that the particular set of bit values are to be sent during the single transmission period (Lohr, page 2, paragraph 42-44; page 10, paragraph 161; i.e., [0043] the total amount of occupied spectrum is, in essence, the same as that of localized single-carrier; [0161] if the scheduling information of the last resource request of a mobile terminal has indicated an amount of uplink data that could be transmitted by the mobile terminal (taking into account buffer status and bucket status) is larger than the amount of data granted for transmission within the validity period of the scheduling grant. Based on the scheduling information of the mobile terminal the scheduling base station is aware that the mobile terminal still has data to send, and may thus autonomously transmit a new scheduling grant to the mobile terminal, as indicated in FIG. 6. However, if the buffer status of a bearer ( e.g. due to the burstiness of the transported data) has changed significantly the mobile terminal may nevertheless send a resource request with new (up-to-date) scheduling information to the base station. It should be noted that the base station may be aware of the bucket status of guaranteed bit-rate bearers of the mobile terminals due to their more predictable behaviour).
As to claim 7, Lohr-Yang teaches the device as recited in claim 1. But Lohr failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the transmitter is configured to, based on the determination that the particular set of bit values are to be sent during two transmission periods, send alternate bit values of the particular set of bit values via a first subset of wires of the set of wires during each of the two transmission periods.
However, Yang teaches the limitation wherein the transmitter is configured to, based on the determination that the particular set of bit values are to be sent during two transmission periods, send alternate bit values of the particular set of bit values via a first subset of wires of the set of wires during each of the two transmission periods (Yang, page 4, paragraph 46; i.e., [0046] Each set of output bits may be individually processed for transmission in one or more transmission symbol periods, which may be a subset of a TTL For example, each of multiple sets of output bits may be
separately interleaved and/or rate-matched to resources of corresponding transmission symbol periods).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lohr in view of Yang so that the system would be able to perform the rate matching of the resources. One would be motivated to do so to reduces overhead and provides higher coding gain (see Yang, page 1, paragraph 5).
As to claim 9, Lohr-Yang teaches the device as recited in claim 1, wherein the set of wires includes a flag wire associated with a first subset of wires of the set of wires, wherein the transmitter is configured to send a flag bit value via the flag wire concurrently with sending the particular set of bit values via the first subset of wires, and wherein the flag bit value indicates whether the single transmission period or the multiple transmission periods are being used to send the particular set of bit values (Lohr, page 4, paragraph 75; i.e., [0075] to transmit a quantity of data (i.e. represents a given number of bits/bytes), is added to the bucket. When the UE is granted resources, it is allowed to transmit data up to the amount represented by the number of tokens in the bucket. When transmitting data the UE removes the number of tokens equivalent to the quantity of transmitted data).
As to claim 30, Lohr-Yang teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 29, wherein the means for obtaining, the means for determining, and the means for sending are integrated into at least one of a communication device, a computer, a display device, a gaming console, a music player, a camera, a navigation device, a vehicle, a headset, a home automation system, a voice-activated device, an internet-of-things (IoT) device, an extended reality (XR) device, a base station, or a mobile device (Lohr, figure 1).
Claim(s) 13, 25 & 29 is/are directed to a method, non-transitory computer readable medium and system claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 1. Therefore, claim(s) 13, 25 & 29 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 1.
Claim(s) 14-16, 19 is/are directed to a method claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 2-4, 7. Therefore, claim(s) 14-16, 19 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 2-4, 7.
Claim(s) 26-28 is/are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 2-4. Therefore, claim(s) 26-28 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 2-4.
Claim(s) 8 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohr, U.S. Pub/Patent No. US 20100135229 A1 in view of Yang, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 20180048426 A1, and further in view of Jalowiecki, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 20040199724 A1.
As to claim 8, Lohr-Yang teaches the device as recited in claim 1. But Lohr-Yang failed to teach the claim limitation wherein during a first transmission period, keep the even wires static and send the odd bit values via the odd wires; and during a second transmission period, keep the odd wires static and send the even bit values via the even wires.
However, Jalowiecki teaches the limitation wherein during a first transmission period, keep the even wires static and send the odd bit values via the odd wires (Jalowiecki, page 8, paragraph 155; i.e., [0155] The operation of each memory cell 800 wired as an even bit during a write cycle comprises the application to that cell 800 of even-bit write data in signal 807); and during a second transmission period, keep the odd wires static and send the even bit values via the even wires (Jalowiecki, page 8, paragraph 157; i.e., [0157] an odd bit during a write cycle comprises the application of odd-bit write data in signal 808, accompanied by a strobe cycle on the odd write enable line 812. The hold requirements of data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lohr-Yang in view of Jalowiecki so that the system is providing the option to identify odd or even bit. One would be motivated to do so to provide a far more flexible solution to the existing CAMs (see Jalowiecki, page 1, paragraph 16).
Claim(s) 20 is/are directed to a method claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 8. Therefore, claim(s) 20 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 8.
Claim(s) 5, 10-12, 17 & 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohr, U.S. Pub/Patent No. US 20100135229 A1 in view of Yang, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 20180048426 A1, and further in view of Jin, US 2016/0072578 A1.
As to claim 5, Lohr-Yang teaches the device as recited in claim 4, wherein based on determining that each of the first transition pattern and the second transition pattern is detected, determine that the transition pattern matches the encoding pattern (Lohr, page 2, paragraph 42-44; page 10, paragraph 161; i.e., [0043] the total amount of occupied spectrum is, in essence, the same as that of localized single-carrier; [0161] if the scheduling information of the last resource request of a mobile terminal has indicated an amount of uplink data that could be transmitted by the mobile terminal (taking into account buffer status and bucket status) is larger than the amount of data granted for transmission within the validity period of the scheduling grant. Based on the scheduling information of the mobile terminal the scheduling base station is aware that the mobile terminal still has data to send, and may thus autonomously transmit a new scheduling grant to the mobile terminal, as indicated in FIG. 6. However, if the buffer status of a bearer ( e.g. due to the burstiness of the transported data) has changed significantly the mobile terminal may nevertheless send a resource request with new (up-to-date) scheduling information to the base station. It should be noted that the base station may be aware of the bucket status of guaranteed bit-rate bearers of the mobile terminals due to their more predictable behaviour).
But Lohr-Yang failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the transmitter is configured to determine that a first set of bit values has been sent via a first subset of wires of the set of wires during a previous first transmission period; determine that a second set of bit values has been sent via the first subset of wires during a previous second transmission period; determine whether a first transition pattern is detected based on a comparison of the first set of bit values and the second set of bit values; determine whether a second transition pattern is detected based on a comparison of the second set of bit values and the set of bit values.
However, Jin teaches the limitation wherein the transmitter is configured to determine that a first set of bit values has been sent via a first subset of wires of the set of wires during a previous first transmission period (Jin, page 3, paragraph 28; page 5, paragraph 44; i.e., [0028] schedule different sets of the cable modems 120(1 )-120(5) to transmit within a same frame (time slot). Table 1, below, illustrates example sets of cable modems that may transmit on the frequency channel 150. In Table 1, an "X" indicates that the corresponding cable modem transmits as part of the set. In accordance with the examples presented herein, the cable modems within a set transmit substantially simultaneously ( e.g., within the same time slot) on the frequency channel 150, but the transmissions from the different sets occur sequentially and do not overlap ( e.g., set 1 transmits, then set 2 transmits, and so on)); determine that a second set of bit values has been sent via the first subset of wires during a previous second transmission period (Jin, page 3, paragraph 28; page 5, paragraph 44; i.e., [0028] schedule different sets of the cable modems 120(1 )-120(5) to transmit within a same frame (time slot). Table 1, below, illustrates example sets of cable modems that may transmit on the frequency channel 150. In Table 1, an "X" indicates that the corresponding cable modem transmits as part of the set. In accordance with the examples presented herein, the cable modems within a set transmit substantially simultaneously ( e.g., within the same time slot) on the frequency channel 150, but the transmissions from the different sets occur sequentially and do not overlap ( e.g., set 1 transmits, then set 2 transmits, and so on)); determine whether a first transition pattern is detected based on a comparison of the first set of bit values and the second set of bit values (Jin, page 3, paragraph 28; page 5, paragraph 44; i.e., [0028] schedule different sets of the cable modems 120(1 )-120(5) to transmit within a same frame (time slot). Table 1, below, illustrates example sets of cable modems that may transmit on the frequency channel 150. In Table 1, an "X" indicates that the corresponding cable modem transmits as part of the set. In accordance with the examples presented herein, the cable modems within a set transmit substantially simultaneously ( e.g., within the same time slot) on the frequency channel 150, but the transmissions from the different sets occur sequentially and do not overlap ( e.g., set 1 transmits, then set 2 transmits, and so on)); determine whether a second transition pattern is detected based on a comparison of the second set of bit values and the set of bit values (Jin, page 3, paragraph 28; page 5, paragraph 44; i.e., [0028] schedule different sets of the
cable modems 120(1 )-120(5) to transmit within a same frame (time slot). Table 1, below, illustrates example sets of cable modems that may transmit on the frequency channel 150. In Table 1, an "X" indicates that the corresponding cable modem transmits as part of the set. In accordance with the examples presented herein, the cable modems within a set transmit substantially simultaneously ( e.g., within the same time slot) on the frequency channel 150, but the transmissions from the different sets occur sequentially and do not overlap ( e.g., set 1 transmits, then set 2 transmits, and so on)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lohr-Yang in view of Jin so that the system is used for mapping constant bit rate (CBR) traffic onto service flows. One would be motivated to do so to utilized to reach points close to the users without having to install fiber optic cables to individual locations (see Jin, page 1, paragraph 2).
As to claim 10, Lohr-Yang teaches the device as recited in claim 1. But Lohr-Yang failed to teach the claim limitation wherein during a first transmission period, send a first subset of the particular set of bit values via a first subset of wires of the set of wires and send the second set of bit values via a second subset of wires of the set of wires; and during a second transmission period, send a second subset of the particular set of bit values via the first subset of wires and send the third set of bit values via the second subset of wires.
However, Jin teaches the limitation wherein during a first transmission period, send a first subset of the particular set of bit values via a first subset of wires of the set of wires and send the second set of bit values via a second subset of wires of the set of wires (Jin, page 3, paragraph 28; page 5, paragraph 44; i.e., [0028] schedule different sets of the cable modems 120(1 )-120(5) to transmit within a same frame (time slot). Table 1, below, illustrates example sets of cable modems that may transmit on the frequency channel 150. In Table 1, an "X" indicates that the corresponding cable modem transmits as part of the set. In accordance with the examples presented herein, the cable modems within a set transmit substantially simultaneously ( e.g., within the same time slot) on the frequency channel 150, but the transmissions from the different sets occur sequentially and do not overlap ( e.g., set 1 transmits, then set 2 transmits, and so on)); and during a second transmission period, send a second subset of the particular set of bit values via the first subset of wires and send the third set of bit values via the second subset of wires (Jin, page 3, paragraph 28; page 5, paragraph 44; i.e., [0028] schedule different sets of the cable modems 120(1 )-120(5) to transmit within a same frame (time slot). Table 1, below, illustrates example sets of cable modems that may transmit on the frequency channel 150. In Table 1, an "X" indicates that the corresponding cable modem transmits as part of the set. In accordance with the examples presented herein, the cable modems within a set transmit substantially simultaneously ( e.g., within the same time slot) on the frequency channel 150, but the transmissions from the different sets occur sequentially and do not overlap ( e.g., set 1 transmits, then set 2 transmits, and so on)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lohr-Yang in view of Jin so that the system is used for mapping constant bit rate (CBR) traffic onto service flows. One would be motivated to do so to utilized to reach points close to the users without having to install fiber optic cables to individual locations (see Jin, page 1, paragraph 2).
As to claim 11, Lohr-Yang teaches the device as recited in claim 1, wherein
determine whether a first transition pattern is detected based on a comparison of the first set of bit values and the second set of bit values (Lohr, page 2, paragraph 42-44; page 10, paragraph 161; i.e., [0043] the total amount of occupied spectrum is, in essence, the same as that of localized single-carrier; [0161] if the scheduling information of the last resource request of a mobile terminal has indicated an amount of uplink data that could be transmitted by the mobile terminal (taking into account buffer status and bucket status) is larger than the amount of data granted for transmission within the validity period of the scheduling grant. Based on the scheduling information of the mobile terminal the scheduling base station is aware that the mobile terminal still has data to send, and may thus autonomously transmit a new scheduling grant to the mobile terminal, as indicated in FIG. 6. However, if the buffer status of a bearer ( e.g. due to the burstiness of the transported data) has changed significantly the mobile terminal may nevertheless send a resource request with new (up-to-date) scheduling information to the base station. It should be noted that the base station may be aware of the bucket status of guaranteed bit-rate bearers of the mobile terminals due to their more predictable behaviour);
determine whether a second transition pattern is detected based on a comparison of the second set of bit values and the third set of bit values (Lohr, page 2, paragraph 42-44; page 10, paragraph 161; i.e., [0043] the total amount of occupied spectrum is, in essence, the same as that of localized single-carrier; [0161] if the scheduling information of the last resource request of a mobile terminal has indicated an amount of uplink data that could be transmitted by the mobile terminal (taking into account buffer status and bucket status) is larger than the amount of data granted for transmission within the validity period of the scheduling grant. Based on the scheduling information of the mobile terminal the scheduling base station is aware that the mobile terminal still has data to send, and may thus autonomously transmit a new scheduling grant to the mobile terminal, as indicated in FIG. 6. However, if the buffer status of a bearer ( e.g. due to the burstiness of the transported data) has changed significantly the mobile terminal may nevertheless send a resource request with new (up-to-date) scheduling information to the base station. It should be noted that the base station may be aware of the bucket status of guaranteed bit-rate bearers of the mobile terminals due to their more predictable behaviour);
based at least in part on determining that each of the first transition pattern and the second transition pattern is detected, output the third set of bit values as decoded data (Lohr, page 2, paragraph 42-44; page 10, paragraph 161; i.e., [0043] the total amount of occupied spectrum is, in essence, the same as that of localized single-carrier; [0161] if the scheduling information of the last resource request of a mobile terminal has indicated an amount of uplink data that could be transmitted by the mobile terminal (taking into account buffer status and bucket status) is larger than the amount of data granted for transmission within the validity period of the scheduling grant. Based on the scheduling information of the mobile terminal the scheduling base station is aware that the mobile terminal still has data to send, and may thus autonomously transmit a new scheduling grant to the mobile terminal, as indicated in FIG. 6. However, if the buffer status of a bearer ( e.g. due to the burstiness of the transported data) has changed significantly the mobile terminal may nevertheless send a resource request with new (up-to-date) scheduling information to the base station. It should be noted that the base station may be aware of the bucket status of guaranteed bit-rate bearers of the mobile terminals due to their more predictable behaviour).
But Lohr-Yang failed to teach the claim limitation wherein to receive a first set of bit values via a first subset of wires of the set of wires during a first transmission period; receive a second set of bit values via the first subset of wires during a second transmission period; receive a third set of bit values via the first subset of wires during a third transmission period.
However, Jin teaches the limitation wherein to receive a first set of bit values via a first subset of wires of the set of wires during a first transmission period; receive a second set of bit values via the first subset of wires during a second transmission period; receive a third set of bit values via the first subset of wires during a third transmission period; determine whether a second transition pattern is detected based on a comparison of the second set of bit values and the third set of bit values (Jin, page 3, paragraph 28; page 5, paragraph 44; i.e., [0028] schedule different sets of the cable modems 120(1 )-120(5) to transmit within a same frame (time slot). Table 1, below, illustrates example sets of cable modems that may transmit on the frequency channel 150. In Table 1, an "X" indicates that the corresponding cable modem transmits as part of the set. In accordance with the examples presented herein, the cable modems within a set transmit substantially simultaneously ( e.g., within the same time slot) on the frequency channel 150, but the transmissions from the different sets occur sequentially and do not overlap ( e.g., set 1 transmits, then set 2 transmits, and so on)); and during a second transmission period, send a second subset of the particular set of bit values via the first subset of wires and send the third set of bit values via the second subset of wires (Jin, page 3, paragraph 28; page 5, paragraph 44; i.e., [0028] schedule different sets of the cable modems 120(1 )-120(5) to transmit within a same frame (time slot). Table 1, below, illustrates example sets of cable modems that may transmit on the frequency channel 150. In Table 1, an "X" indicates that the corresponding cable modem transmits as part of the set. In accordance with the examples presented herein, the cable modems within a set transmit substantially simultaneously ( e.g., within the same time slot) on the frequency channel 150, but the transmissions from the different sets occur sequentially and do not overlap ( e.g., set 1 transmits, then set 2 transmits, and so on)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lohr-Yang in view of Jin so that the system is used for mapping constant bit rate (CBR) traffic onto service flows. One would be motivated to do so to utilized to reach points close to the users without having to install fiber optic cables to individual locations (see Jin, page 1, paragraph 2).
As to claim 12, Lohr-Yang teaches the device as recited in claim 1. But Lohr-Yang failed to teach the claim limitation wherein based at least in part on determining that each of the first flag bit value and the second flag bit value indicates that the multiple transmission periods are being used, output the second set of bit values as decoded data; receive a first set of bit values via a first subset of wires of the set of wires during a first transmission period; receive, during the first transmission period, a first flag bit value via a flag wire associated with the first subset of wires; receive a second set of bit values via the first subset of wires during a second transmission period; receive, during the second transmission period, a second flag bit value via the flag wire.
However, Jin teaches the limitation wherein during a first transmission period, send a first subset of the particular set of bit values via a first subset of wires of the set of wires and send the second set of bit values via a second subset of wires of the set of wires (Jin, page 3, paragraph 28; page 5, paragraph 44; i.e., [0028] schedule different sets of the cable modems 120(1 )-120(5) to transmit within a same frame (time slot). Table 1, below, illustrates example sets of cable modems that may transmit on the frequency channel 150. In Table 1, an "X" indicates that the corresponding cable modem transmits as part of the set. In accordance with the examples presented herein, the cable modems within a set transmit substantially simultaneously ( e.g., within the same time slot) on the frequency channel 150, but the transmissions from the different sets occur sequentially and do not overlap ( e.g., set 1 transmits, then set 2 transmits, and so on)); and during a second transmission period, send a second subset of the particular set of bit values via the first subset of wires and send the third set of bit values via the second subset of wires (Jin, page 3, paragraph 28; page 5, paragraph 44; i.e., [0028] schedule different sets of the cable modems 120(1 )-120(5) to transmit within a same frame (time slot). Table 1, below, illustrates example sets of cable modems that may transmit on the frequency channel 150. In Table 1, an "X" indicates that the corresponding cable modem transmits as part of the set. In accordance with the examples presented herein, the cable modems within a set transmit substantially simultaneously ( e.g., within the same time slot) on the frequency channel 150, but the transmissions from the different sets occur sequentially and do not overlap ( e.g., set 1 transmits, then set 2 transmits, and so on)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lohr-Yang in view of Jin so that the system is used for mapping constant bit rate (CBR) traffic onto service flows. One would be motivated to do so to utilized to reach points close to the users without having to install fiber optic cables to individual locations (see Jin, page 1, paragraph 2).
However, Yang teaches the limitation wherein based at least in part on determining that each of the first flag bit value and the second flag bit value indicates that the multiple transmission periods are being used, output the second set of bit values as decoded data (Yang, page 4, paragraph 137-138; i.e., [0138] the encoder, a first set of output bits of the plurality of sets of output bits associated with a first transmission symbol period of the plurality of transmission symbol periods prior to receiving all input bits of the second set of input bits of the plurality of sets of input bits, the second set of input bits being received at the encoder subsequent to the first set of input bits).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lohr in view of Yang so that the system would be able to perform the rate matching of the resources. One would be motivated to do so to reduces overhead and provides higher coding gain (see Yang, page 1, paragraph 5).
Claim(s) 17 is/are directed to a method claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 5. Therefore, claim(s) 17 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 5.
Claim(s) 22-24 is/are directed to a method claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 10-12. Therefore, claim(s) 22-24 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 10-12.
Listing of Relevant Arts
Bharadwaj, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 20200236655 A1 discloses index bits and multiple of a transmission interval.
Cai, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 20140307606 A1 discloses traffic patterns and specific bit value.
Contact Information
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
THUONG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3864. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Noel Beharry can be reached on 571-270-5630. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THUONG NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2416