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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features claimed in claims 1, 11, 19 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 3, 13, 20 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.
Claims 3, 13 recite the limitation “encoding uplink control information (UCI) for transmission to the base station…the UCI including the indication based on the size of the UL data packet” which makes the claims indefinite. Claims 3, 13 claim dependency from respective claims 1, 11 hence it’s unclear if the SR encoded in claims 1, 11 are part of the UCI or if the UCI is separate from the encoded SR. It’s also unclear if the “indication” included in the UCI is being included twice (once with SR) if SR is part of UCI. Examiner will interpret as best understood.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the UCI including the indication based on the size of the UL data packet” which makes the claim indefinite. Claim 20 claims dependency from claim 19 which recites “…SR including an indication based on a size of an uplink (UL) data packet” hence it’s unclear if the SR encoded in claim 19 is part of the UCI or if the UCI is separate from the encoded SR. It’s also unclear if the “indication” included in the UCI is being included twice (once with SR) if SR is part of UCI. Examiner will interpret as best understood.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-10 are rejected as being anticipated by claims 1-10 of US Patent 11,877,268, hereafter patent’268.
Regarding claim 1 of instant application, claim 1 of patent’268 discloses
An apparatus for a user equipment (UE) configured for operation in a wireless network, the apparatus comprising: (see claim 1 lines 1-2)
processing circuitry, wherein the processing circuitry is to: (see claim 1 line 3)
encode a scheduling request (SR) for transmission to a base station during one of a plurality of SR occasions, the SR including an indication based on a size of an uplink (UL) data packet, (see claim 1 lines 14-16)
decode control information from the base station in response to the SR, the control information including a scheduling grant based on the size of the UL data packet, and (see claim 1 lines 17-20)
encode the UL data packet for transmission using the scheduling grant, and (see claim 1 lines 21-22)
a memory coupled to the processing circuitry and configured to store the UL data packet. (see claim 1 lines 23-24)
Regarding claim 2 of instant application, claim 2 of patent’268 discloses the same limitation
Regarding claim 3 of instant application, claim 3 of patent’268 discloses the same limitation
Regarding claim 4 of instant application, claim 4 of patent’268 discloses the same limitation
Regarding claim 5 of instant application, claim 5 of patent’268 discloses the same limitation
Regarding claim 6 of instant application, claim 6 of patent’268 discloses the same limitation
Regarding claim 7 of instant application, claim 7 of patent’268 discloses the same limitation
Regarding claim 8 of instant application, claim 8 of patent’268 discloses the same limitation
Regarding claim 9 of instant application, claim 9 of patent’268 discloses the same limitation
Regarding claim10 of instant application, claim 10 of patent’268 discloses the same limitation
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.
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 1, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sachs et al (USPN 20200259896) in view of Freda et al (WO 2017196968 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sachs discloses
an apparatus for a user equipment (UE) configured for operation in a wireless network, the apparatus comprising: (UE operable for wireless communication in wireless network, comprising [1290-1292]
processing circuitry, wherein the processing circuitry is to: (processor/CPU, FIG. 124 #2502 operable to [1290]
a scheduling request (SR) for transmission to a base station during one of a plurality of SR occasions, the SR including an indication based on a size of an uplink (UL) data packet (SR comprising mapping to packet size transmitted to radio network node during a SR transmission occasion [1010-1011, 1017], FIGs. 67, 68
a memory coupled to the processing circuitry and configured to store the UL data packet (memory, FIG. 124 #2504, coupled to processor/CPU, FIG. 124 #2502
Sachs does not expressly disclose encode a scheduling request (SR); decode control information from the base station in response to the SR, the control information including a scheduling grant based on the size of the UL data packet; encode the UL data packet for transmission using the scheduling grant; a memory configured to store the UL data packet
Freda discloses encode a scheduling request (SR) (SR encoded with data block size and other information [152-154]
decode control information from the base station in response to the SR, the control information including a scheduling grant based on the size of the UL data packet (decode DCI comprising scheduling grant based on size of uplink SDU/PDU [4-8, 152, 162, 165, 172, 177, 179, 194]
encode the UL data packet for transmission using the scheduling grant, (SDU/PDU encoded for transmission using scheduling grant [135, 143, 145, 170], Abstract
a memory configured to store the UL data packet (UL packet buffered for transmission [131, 164, 41]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “encode a scheduling request (SR); decode control information from the base station in response to the SR, the control information including a scheduling grant based on the size of the UL data packet; encode the UL data packet for transmission using the scheduling grant; a memory configured to store the UL data packet” as taught by Freda into Sachs’s system with the motivation to enable to increase spectrum efficiency by enable a UE to indicate packet size and receive allocation matching packet size.
Regarding claim 11, Sachs discloses
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium that stores instructions for execution by one or more processors of user equipment (UE), the instructions to cause the UE to perform operations comprising: (memory, FIG. 124 #2504, contains software instructions executable by processor, FIG. 124 #2502, to perform [1290-1291]
a scheduling request (SR) for transmission to a base station during one of a plurality of SR occasions, the SR including an indication based on a size of an uplink (UL) data packet (SR comprising mapping to packet size transmitted to radio network node during a SR transmission occasion [1010-1011, 1017], FIGs. 167, 68
a memory coupled to the processing circuitry and configured to store the UL data packet (memory, FIG. 124 #2504, coupled to processor/CPU, FIG. 124 #2502
Sachs does not expressly disclose encode a scheduling request (SR); decode control information from the base station in response to the SR, the control information including a scheduling grant based on the size of the UL data packet; encode the UL data packet for transmission using the scheduling grant; a memory configured to store the UL data packet
Freda discloses encode a scheduling request (SR) (SR encoded with data block size and other information [152-154]
decode control information from the base station in response to the SR, the control information including a scheduling grant based on the size of the UL data packet (code DCI comprising scheduling grant based on size of uplink SDU/PDU [4-8, 152, 162, 165, 172, 177, 179, 194]
encode the UL data packet for transmission using the scheduling grant, (SDU/PDU encoded for transmission using scheduling grant [135, 143, 145, 170], Abstract
a memory configured to store the UL data packet (UL packet buffered for transmission [131, 164, 41]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “encode a scheduling request (SR); decode control information from the base station in response to the SR, the control information including a scheduling grant based on the size of the UL data packet; encode the UL data packet for transmission using the scheduling grant; a memory configured to store the UL data packet” as taught by Freda into Sachs’s system with the motivation to enable to increase spectrum efficiency by enable a UE to indicate packet size and receive allocation matching packet size.
Regarding claim 10, Sachs discloses “transceiver circuitry coupled to the processing circuitry
one or more antennas coupled to the transceiver circuitry” (transceiver, FIG. 124 #2506, coupled to processing circuitry, FIG. 124 #2502, and antennas, FIG. 124 #2512, coupled to transceiver [1289, 1290]
Claims 3, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sachs in view of Freda and in further view of Xiong et al (WO 2017218749 A1)
Regarding claims 3, 13, Sachs discloses “uplink control information (UCI) for transmission to the base station using a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), the UCI including the indication based on the size of the UL data packet” UCI comprising SR for transmission on PUSCH [0895, 1011]
Combined system of Sachs and Freda does not expressly disclose encode uplink control information (UCI) for transmission
Xiong discloses UCI is encoded for transmission on PUSCH [0152]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “encode uplink control information (UCI) for transmission” as taught by Xiong into combined system of Sachs and Freda with the motivation to prevent transmission error of UCI via encoding.
Claims 4, 7, 14, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sachs in view of Freda and in further view of Su et al (USPN 20200187237)
Regarding claims 4, 14, combined system of Sachs and Freda does not expressly disclose “the scheduling grant configures a pool of extended UL resources configured to the UE and at least a second UE”
Su discloses DCI comprising scheduling grant configuring resource pool for multiple UEs [0111-0114], FIGs. 1, 2, 7
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “the scheduling grant configures a pool of extended UL resources configured to the UE and at least a second UE” as taught by Su into combined system of Sachs and Freda with the motivation to reduce signaling associated with granting resources for a group of UEs.
Regarding claims 7, 17, Freda discloses encoding the UL data packet for transmission (SDU/PDU encoded for transmission using scheduling grant [135, 143, 145, 170], Abstract
Combined system of Sachs and Freda does not expressly disclose “transmission using a portion of the configured pool of extended UL resources configured to the UE”
Su discloses UL transmission using a portion of resource pool configured [0111-114, 0195-0201], FIG. 2
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “transmission using a portion of the configured pool of extended UL resources configured to the UE” as taught by Su into combined system of Sachs and Freda with the motivation to reduce signaling associated with granting resources for a group of UEs.
Claims 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sachs in view of Freda and in further view of Kishigami et al (USPN 20100075693)
Regarding claim 19, Sachs discloses
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium that stores instructions for execution by one or more processors of a base station, the instructions to cause the base station to perform operations comprising: (memory, FIG. 121 #2206, comprising instructions executable by processor(s), FIG. 121 #2204 to perform [1284-1288]
a scheduling request received from a user equipment (UE) during one of a plurality of SR occasions, the SR including an indication based on a size of an uplink (UL) data packet (SR comprising mapping to packet size transmitted to radio network node during a SR transmission occasion from a plurality of occasions [1010-1011, 1017], FIGs. 67, 68
decoding the UL data packet (base station decoding UL data transmitted in configured grant [0885]
Sachs does not expressly disclose control information for transmission to the UE, the control information including a scheduling grant based on the size of the UL data packet; UL data packet, the UL data packet received based on the scheduling grant
Freda discloses control information for transmission to the UE, the control information including a scheduling grant based on the size of the UL data packet (DCI comprising scheduling grant based on size of uplink SDU/PDU [4-8, 152, 162, 165, 172, 177, 179, 194]
UL data packet, the UL data packet received based on the scheduling grant (SDU/PDU received using scheduling grant [135, 143, 145, 170], Abstract
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “control information for transmission to the UE, the control information including a scheduling grant based on the size of the UL data packet; UL data packet, the UL data packet received based on the scheduling grant” as taught by Freda into Sachs’s system with the motivation to enable to increase spectrum efficiency by enable a UE to indicate packet size and receive allocation matching packet size.
Combined system of Sachs and Freda does not expressly disclose decoding a scheduling request; encoding control information for transmission
Kishigami discloses decoding a scheduling request (base station decoding scheduling request [0112-0116]
encoding control information for transmission (base station encodes control information for transmission to UE [0120, 0137-0139], FIG. 2
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “decoding a scheduling request; encoding control information for transmission” as taught by Kishigami into combined system of Sachs and Freda with the motivation to use encoding and decoding to reliability and interference resistant.
Regarding claim 20, Sachs discloses “uplink control information (UCI) for transmission to the base station using a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), the UCI including the indication based on the size of the UL data packet” UCI comprising SR for transmission on PUSCH [0895, 1011]
Combined system of Sachs and Freda does not expressly disclose decoding uplink control information (UCI)
Kishigami discloses decoding uplink control information (UCI) (base station decoding scheduling request [0112-0116]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “uplink control information (UCI)” as taught by Kishigami into combined system of Sachs and Freda with the motivation to use encoding and decoding to reliability and interference resistant.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16, 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yu et al (USPN 20200068600) FIG. 2
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F campus 10:30-5pm, telework 6pm-8pm| Telework count days.
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, Ian N Moore can be reached at (571)272-3085. 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.
/THAI NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469