DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-18, 20-25, and 27-32 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, 9, 17, and 24, for example see claim 1, lines 5-8, the claims recite determining one or more opportunities in the N opportunities that will not be used for data transmission and deactivating the one or more opportunities in the N opportunities that will not be sued for data transmission. The meaning of the limitation, “one or more opportunities in the N opportunities” is unclear from the context of the claim. The first limitation recites determining N opportunities. It is unclear as to whether the “one or more opportunities in the N opportunities” is a reference to a value of N or a subset value of N, such that N itself comprises a series of opportunities. In addition, the last limitation recites sending data within one or more of the N opportunities; however, the prior limitations make no mention of ensuring at one N opportunity is reserved for data transmission. The prior limitations recite deactivating the one or more opportunities in the N opportunities, such that all of the N opportunities may be activated such that no opportunities would be available for sending data. For example, if N=2 and both opportunities are deactivated, then sending data within one of two opportunities would not be possible. The claim does not recite determining N opportunities that will be used for data transmission; therefore, all N opportunities may not be used for data transmission. Appropriate clarification and correction are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a mathematical formula/steps. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because described improvement to the computer system is speculative. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely apply the abstract idea.
Regarding claims 1-30, see claims 1, 9, 17, and 24, the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 1-30 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained as followed. The claim is directed to an abstract idea, which is excluded from eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. The invention is directed towards the abstract idea of mathematical relationships/formulas. The claims are directed towards a process, machine, and article of manufacture. The claims are directed to an abstract idea and the recited additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because the specification does not disclose a concrete improvement in technology. The claim considered as a whole does not qualify because limitations do not amount to "significantly more" than the use of the abstract idea itself. The invention is directed towards the abstract idea of mathematical relationships/formulas related to determining N opportunities. In this particular case, the claims determining N opportunities (abstract idea/mathematical equation) . . . determining one or more opportunities in the N opportunities that will not be used for data transmission (abstract idea/mathematical equation reciting intended-use) . . . deactivating the one or more opportunities in the N opportunities that will not be used for data transmission (abstract idea/mathematical equation reciting intended-use) and sending data within one or more of the N opportunities (post solution activity) . . . . In this manner, the claim is directed towards the mathematical relationship of determining a value of N opportunities for data transmission.
The claims do not recite limitations directed to improvements to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. There are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself rendering the claim non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed towards determining a value N and transmitting data. The claim does not recite an improvement to the computer system itself because the manner in which the N opportunities is utilized to improve the computer system is not recited within the claim. The claim does not recite the improvement to the system because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the meaning and purpose of the score does not affect the system. In this manner, the claim is directed towards the abstract idea of mathematical formula for scoring a hierarchy of servers and merely applies that function; therefore, the claim does not recite a practical application.
The claim limitations both individually and as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Like Enfish, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea, however, unlike Enfish the abstract idea does not encompass an improvement to the computer system itself. The specification fails to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention of determining N opportunities accomplishes the alleged improvement, like Affinity Labs. Unlike Enfish, the claimed speculative improvement does not represent a concrete improvement, but merely an instant in which an improvement may or may not be realized. The step to administer the mathematical formula/steps is not particular, and is instead merely instructions to apply the exception in a generic way, i.e. the recited transmission step. Thus, the administration step does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
The claim limitations do not integrate the judicial exception by implementing the judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, because the claim is directed towards a generic computer. The claim does not integrate the judicial exception by effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, because no such transformation is present. The limitations considered individually and as a whole do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor do the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because the claims merely recite adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; apply it; and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-14, 16-22, and 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xie et al. (US 2019/0191416 A1), hereinafter referred to as D1.
Regarding claims 1, 9, 17, and 24, D1 discloses a method, system, and apparatus for receiving information between a base station and a terminal, which comprises:
determining N opportunities, wherein the N opportunities are within a first time range, and N is a positive integer greater than or equal to 2 (Referring to Figures 1 and 2, n step S102, semi-persistent scheduling information for indicating N transmission opportunities in a semi-persistent scheduling period is configured. The N transmission opportunities include M transmission opportunities for transmitting data by a sending end. N is an integer greater than 1, thereby comprising values greater than 2, M is an integer, and 0<M≤N. See paragraph 0102.);
determining one or more opportunities in the N opportunities that will not be used for data transmission; deactivating the one or more opportunities in the N opportunities that will not be used for data transmission Referring to Figures 1-3, the N transmission opportunities may include: a redundant transmission opportunity. The redundant transmission opportunity may be the remaining transmission opportunities among the N transmission opportunities other than the M transmission opportunities. That is, the N transmission opportunities may include transmission opportunities not for transmitting data. For example, if one semi-persistent scheduling period includes three transmission opportunities, one of the three transmission opportunities is used for the terminal to transmit data (sending data within one or more of the N opportunities), and the other two transmission opportunities are not used for the terminal to transmit data (determining one or more opportunities in the N opportunities that will not be used for data transmission/deactivating the one or more opportunities in the N opportunities that will not be used for data transmission); or two of the three transmission opportunities are used for the terminal to transmit data, and the remaining one transmission opportunity is not used for transmitting data, but the present disclosure is not limited thereto. See paragraphs 0106-0107.); and
sending data within two or more of the N opportunities (Referring to Figures 1 and 19, periodically send downlink data information in the transmission opportunities. See paragraphs 0104.)
Regarding claims 2, 10, 18, and 25, D1 discloses receiving first information indicating a length of the first time range (Referring to Figures 1-3, the semi-persistent scheduling information may include one of: a starting position of the transmission opportunity window; the starting position of the transmission opportunity window and a length of the transmission opportunity window; the starting position of the transmission opportunity window, the length of the transmission opportunity window and a transmission opportunity interval; the starting position of the transmission opportunity window, the length of the transmission opportunity window and the number of transmission opportunities; the starting position of the transmission opportunity window, the transmission opportunity interval and the number of transmission opportunities; the starting position of the transmission opportunity window, a transmission opportunity starting position in the transmission opportunity window and the length of the transmission opportunity window; the starting position of the transmission opportunity window, the transmission opportunity starting position in the transmission opportunity window, the length of the transmission opportunity window and the transmission opportunity interval; the starting position of the transmission opportunity window, the transmission opportunity starting position in the transmission opportunity window, the length of the transmission opportunity window and the number of transmission opportunities; and the starting position of the transmission opportunity window, the transmission opportunity starting position in the transmission opportunity window, the transmission opportunity interval and the number of transmission opportunities. That is, the above information may be used for indicating the distribution of the transmission opportunities in a semi-persistent scheduling period. See paragraph 0111-0112.)
Regarding claims 3, 11, 19, and 26, D1 discloses a determining condition for the terminal to deactivate the one or more opportunities is agreed upon by a network device and terminal device in advance of deactivating the one or more opportunities (Note, the limitation “for . . .” is considered an intended-use limitation and is not given patentable weight. An intended-use limitation is merely a statement of some intended future purpose and not a positive recitation. The prior art is also capable of such a configuration and, therefore, teaches the claimed determining condition. Referring to Figures 1-3, the N transmission opportunities may include: a redundant transmission opportunity. The redundant transmission opportunity may be the remaining transmission opportunities among the N transmission opportunities other than the M transmission opportunities. That is, the N transmission opportunities may include transmission opportunities not for transmitting data. For example, if one semi-persistent scheduling period includes three transmission opportunities, one of the three transmission opportunities is used for the terminal to transmit data, and the other two transmission opportunities are not used for the terminal to transmit data; or two of the three transmission opportunities are used for the terminal to transmit data, and the remaining one transmission opportunity is not used for transmitting data, but the present disclosure is not limited thereto. See paragraphs 0106-0107.)
Regarding claims 4, 12, 20, and 27, D1 discloses wherein an interval between any two adjacent opportunities in the N opportunities is T1 time units, where T1 is 0 (Referring to Figures 1-3, the N transmission opportunities may include: a redundant transmission opportunity. The redundant transmission opportunity may be the remaining transmission opportunities among the N transmission opportunities other than the M transmission opportunities. That is, the N transmission opportunities may include transmission opportunities not for transmitting data. For example, if one semi-persistent scheduling period includes three transmission opportunities (interpreted as T1 is zero as the periods are consecutive), one of the three transmission opportunities is used for the terminal to transmit data, and the other two transmission opportunities are not used for the terminal to transmit data; or two of the three transmission opportunities are used for the terminal to transmit data, and the remaining one transmission opportunity is not used for transmitting data, but the present disclosure is not limited thereto. See paragraphs 0106-0107. The transmission opportunities separated in time.)
Regarding claims 5, 13, 21, and 28, D1 discloses wherein each opportunity in the two or more of the N opportunities transmits different transmission blocks (TBs) (Referring to Figures 1-3, the N transmission opportunities may include: a redundant transmission opportunity. The redundant transmission opportunity may be the remaining transmission opportunities among the N transmission opportunities other than the M transmission opportunities. That is, the N transmission opportunities may include transmission opportunities not for transmitting data (carries different transmission blocks). For example, if one semi-persistent scheduling period includes three transmission opportunities, one of the three transmission opportunities is used for the terminal to transmit data, and the other two transmission opportunities are not used for the terminal to transmit data; or two of the three transmission opportunities are used for the terminal to transmit data, and the remaining one transmission opportunity is not used for transmitting data, but the present disclosure is not limited thereto. See paragraphs 0106-0107. The transmission opportunities separated in time.)
Regarding claims 6, 14, 22, and 29, D1 discloses receiving second information indicating the N opportunities; and the determining N opportunities comprises determining the N opportunities based on the second information (Referring to Figures 1-3, the semi-persistent scheduling information may include one of: a starting position of the transmission opportunity window; the starting position of the transmission opportunity window and a length of the transmission opportunity window; the starting position of the transmission opportunity window, the length of the transmission opportunity window and a transmission opportunity interval; the starting position of the transmission opportunity window, the length of the transmission opportunity window and the number of transmission opportunities; the starting position of the transmission opportunity window, the transmission opportunity interval and the number of transmission opportunities; the starting position of the transmission opportunity window, a transmission opportunity starting position in the transmission opportunity window and the length of the transmission opportunity window; the starting position of the transmission opportunity window, the transmission opportunity starting position in the transmission opportunity window, the length of the transmission opportunity window and the transmission opportunity interval; the starting position of the transmission opportunity window, the transmission opportunity starting position in the transmission opportunity window, the length of the transmission opportunity window and the number of transmission opportunities; and the starting position of the transmission opportunity window, the transmission opportunity starting position in the transmission opportunity window, the transmission opportunity interval and the number of transmission opportunities. That is, the above information may be used for indicating the distribution of the transmission opportunities in a semi-persistent scheduling period. See paragraph 0111-0112.)
Regarding claim 8, D1 discloses wherein each opportunity in the one or more of the N opportunities is a configured grant (CG) opportunity (Referring to Figures 1-3, The network side activates the corresponding SPS configuration for the terminal according to a scheduling request from the terminal. The terminal may select one or more transmission opportunities from multiple configured transmission opportunities to send corresponding data information (interpreted as a configured grant opportunity). See paragraphs 0262-0264.)
Regarding claims 31 and 32, D1 discloses wherein the first time range is one configured grant period receiving first information indicating a length of the first time range (Referring to Figures 1-3, the semi-persistent scheduling information may include one of: a starting position of the transmission opportunity window; the starting position of the transmission opportunity window and a length of the transmission opportunity window (length interpreted as first time range is one configured grant period as the period is not limited either functionally or structurally from the prior art); the starting position of the transmission opportunity window, the length of the transmission opportunity window and a transmission opportunity interval; the starting position of the transmission opportunity window, the length of the transmission opportunity window and the number of transmission opportunities; the starting position of the transmission opportunity window, the transmission opportunity interval and the number of transmission opportunities; the starting position of the transmission opportunity window, a transmission opportunity starting position in the transmission opportunity window and the length of the transmission opportunity window; the starting position of the transmission opportunity window, the transmission opportunity starting position in the transmission opportunity window, the length of the transmission opportunity window and the transmission opportunity interval; the starting position of the transmission opportunity window, the transmission opportunity starting position in the transmission opportunity window, the length of the transmission opportunity window and the number of transmission opportunities; and the starting position of the transmission opportunity window, the transmission opportunity starting position in the transmission opportunity window, the transmission opportunity interval and the number of transmission opportunities. That is, the above information may be used for indicating the distribution of the transmission opportunities in a semi-persistent scheduling period. See paragraph 0111-0112.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 7, 15, 23, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of Kang et al. (US 2025/0062789 A1), hereinafter referred to as D2.
Regarding claim 7, 15, 23, and 30, D1 does not disclose wherein: feedback information corresponding to two or more transmission blocks (TBs) transmitted within the two or more of the N opportunities is reported using different hybrid automatic retransmission request (HARQ) process numbers; or feedback information corresponding to two or more TBs transmitted within two or more of the N opportunities is reported by using one HARQ process number.
D2 teaches in the case where the PDSCH is configured to carry up to two TBs (2 or more transmission blocks), the HARQ-ACK response (feedback information) may be configured in two bits if spatial bundling is not configured and in one bit if spatial bundling is configured (interpreted as one process number). See paragraphs 0103-0107.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the HARQ of D2 in the system of D1. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to do so to enhance reliability and ensure data integrity of transmitted data.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18, 20-25, and 27-32 have been considered but are moot because of the new 112(b) ground of rejection. On page 8 of the remarks, regarding claims 1-18, 20-25, an 27-32, the Applicant argues that because there is an unused opportunity in the N opportunities within the first time range in addition to the two or more opportunities for data transmission, the terminal may deactivate the unused opportunity. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claims do not recite determining two or more opportunities for data transmission, but rather merely determining unused opportunities. Thereby, energy saving is not achieved if data transmission periods are not determined and performed. The claim does not recite determining transmission opportunities and the contradiction is addressed in the 112b rejection presented above. Appropriate clarification and correction are required. On page 11 of the remarks, regarding claims 1-8, 17, and 30, the Applicant argues D1 does not teach a terminal devices that performs the steps. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in the independent claim(s). When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “the terminal device” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02. On page 17 of the remarks, regarding claims 7, 15, 23, and 30, the Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose the terminal device performs the steps. The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the same reasons state above as the recited limitation is found in the preamble.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prakash et al. (US 2020/0107285 A1) - The packet delivery window configuration may indicate a periodicity, offset, start time, end time, and/or duration of the delivery windows, among other information. Based on the identified packet delivery time window configuration, the device may delay transmission of the data packet (e.g., for the duration of one or more configured delivery windows). At, for example, the end of the respective delivery window, the device may deliver the data packet to a network device for which the information of the data packet is to be used.
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 DONALD L MILLS whose telephone number is (571)272-3094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9-5 PM 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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at 571-272-3927. 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.
DONALD L. MILLS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2462
/Donald L Mills/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
